GHULAM YASIN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed his constitutional petition, thereby upholding eviction orders issued by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge. The respondent, a widow, had successfully sought the petitioner's eviction based on default in rent payments. The petitioner contested the eviction by denying the landlord-tenant relationship, claiming instead that he held the property through a family settlement in exchange for his share in other joint property, and further asserting adverse possession. The Rent Controller, however, determined that the landlord-tenant relationship existed and that the petitioner was in default. The Supreme Court reviewed the petitioner's contention that a pending civil suit regarding title should have precluded the Rent Controller's findings. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the lower courts' appraisal of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the eviction order while clarifying that the petitioner's pending civil suit regarding title remains unaffected and shall proceed on its own merits in accordance with the law.
- Can a Rent Controller determine the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship when a title suit is pending in a Civil Court?
- Does the existence of a pending civil suit regarding property title automatically preclude a Rent Controller from ordering eviction based on rent default?
- Is a finding of fact by a Rent Controller, upheld by an Appellate Court, subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction absent a jurisdictional error?
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, an occupant of a house No,47/B Gulgasht Colony, Multan, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 6-2- 1989 whereby a Constitutional petition filed by him was dismissed with costs maintaining the order of the Rent Controller dated 11-3-1987 directing his eviction from the property which was upheld by the Additional District Judge by order dated 21-2-1988.
2. The respondent No,3, widow of Ghulam Murtaza a brother of the petitioner, sought his eviction from the house on the ground that he defaulted in the payment of rent since December, 1979. The application was contested by the petitioner who took up the ground that he was not the tenant of the respondent No,3. He set up a counter case that his deceased brother had given this property to him in lieu of his share in joint Property No,155-A, Shamas Abad Colony, Multan, through a family settlement. He also claimed to be in adverse possession of the property and to have invested huge amount in its construction and completion. The Rent Controller framed the following two issues:- "(1) Whether there exists relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties.
(2) Relief."
' The Rent Controller held the relationship of landlord and tenant established between the parties and the petitioner to be in default and ordered his eviction. His appeal before the Additional District Judge failed and so did the Constitutional petition.
3. Mr. Pervaiz Akhtar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that a title suit was already pending betwven the parties in the Civil Court and that the finding which has been recorded by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Appellate Court and the High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction could not on the facts of the case be recorded. He has also drawn our attention to the decision of this Court in the case of Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another (1983 SCMR 1064), and contended that in any case the Civil Suit should be allowed to proceed on merits.
4. The High Court has extensively discussed the evidence led before the Rent Controller in order to demonstrate that the Rent Controller had drawn conclusions which could be drawn by him well within his jurisdiction. There was no legal or jurisdictional error which could attract the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court or otherwise justify intervention with the orders passed by the designated authorities.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and find that he has not been able to suggest any such defect in the reasoning or appraisal of the case by the High Court in the impugned judgment which may require further examination at our level or may appear to be unjustified on merits. In the circumstances we find no merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused. However, it is made clear that the Civil Suit instituted by the petitioner and already pending, shall proceed on merits and will be decided in accordance with the law applicable.
' Leave to .