GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Mst. RASHIDA HAMID and others
This is a tenant's petition arising from the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which upheld an eviction order under the Rent Restriction Law. The core legal question pressed before the Supreme Court was whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties concerning a property transferred under settlement laws for displaced persons. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts, determining the disputed portion was transferred to the respondents and establishing the petitioner as a tenant, were unexceptionable, thus justifying the refusal of leave to appeal. However, the Court observed that the petitioner might file a regular suit in a court of general jurisdiction for declaration of ownership and possession after surrendering possession to the successful party. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings regarding transfer of property under settlement laws and tenancy will not be disturbed in leave to appeal, leaving the party to seek remedy through a regular civil suit.
- Does the relationship of landlord and tenant exist when property is disputed under settlement laws?
- Can concurrent findings of lower courts regarding property transfer under settlement laws be interfered with in leave to appeal?
- May a tenant file a suit for declaration of ownership in a court of general jurisdiction after eviction?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This is tenant's petition, against the dismissal by the High Court of his Writ Petition; which had arisen out of the order of his eviction under the Rent Restriction Law. The question now pressed before this Court is whether the relationship of the landlord and tenant existed between the parties or not.
2. ' The property in question was admittedly transferred under the law relating to the settlement of displaced persons. The dispute is whether the portion in question stood transferred to the petitioner side or to the respondent side. On the basis of the evidence led before the learned Courts below, it has been found that the disputed portion was transferred to the respondent side and that the petitioner's position was only that of a tenant.
3. Learned counsel has argued the matter at length taking us through various documents relating to transfer of the concerned properties which are on record. But, all the documents which are required to be examined, had not been placed on the record. The findings as they appear from the impugned judgments, do seem to be unexceptionable so as to justify the dismissal of this petition and refusal for leave to appeal by this Court. However, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, we consider it fit and proper to observe that the petitioner may, if so advised, file a suit in the Court of general jurisdiction (after surrendering the possession to the respondent successful party) for declaration of ownership and possession.
4. ' With these observations, leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 4 cases
- MOHAMMAD YOUSAF BUTT vs MOHAMMAD ALI And Another K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 295
- MUHAMMAD QASIM Versus MOUJUDDIN 1992 MLD 976
- RAHIM SHAH Versus KASSIM 1992 MLD 1751
- KARIM BAKHSH vs Haji GHULAM DASTGIR And 5 OTHER 1990 CLC 1146