KANEEZ FATIMA vs KHALIL AHMAD SHARAR and 2 others
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant challenging the High Court's dismissal of her writ petition, which arose from eviction orders passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who claimed ownership of the land beneath the disputed building, could be legally classified as a tenant regarding the superstructure owned by the respondent. The lower courts had consistently found that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant liable for rent for the superstructure, thereby establishing a landlord-tenant relationship. The Supreme Court found no grounds to disturb the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the eviction. However, the Court held that the petitioner could pursue a separate suit in a court of general jurisdiction to seek a declaration of title regarding the land under the building. The Court clarified that this right to litigate title did not entitle the petitioner to regain possession of the property, as the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller remained valid and enforceable.
- Can a tenant claiming ownership of the land beneath a building challenge an eviction order based on the landlord's ownership of the superstructure?
- Does the right to file a suit for declaration of title regarding land entitle a tenant to regain possession after a valid eviction order?
- Is a tenant liable for rent for a superstructure even if they claim ownership of the underlying land?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant; against the dismissal by the High Court, of her Writ Petition. It had arisen out of orders of her eviction passed by a learned Rent Controller.
2. The controversy before the learned Courts below was; whether, the petitioner who is stated to be the owner of the land under the building in dispute could be treated as tenant, vis-a-vis, the superstructure belonging to the respondent/landlord. It may be noted here that this assumption has been raised only in the context of the arguments relating to the ownership of the land, in case they are accepted. It has been found that the petitioner, on the finding that she was inducted as a tenant and was liable to pay the rent at least for the superstructure of the building, was a tenant in law, vis-a-vis, the "building".
3. After some arguments the learned counsel could not advance any satisfactory argument to upset the findings of the High Court. He in the alternative requested that the petitioner who has now been physically evicted in execution of the impugned orders may be allowed to seek declaration of her title in so far as the land under the building is concerned.
4. After hearing both the learned counsel on the alternative prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner we consider it a fit case in view of certain observations made in the impugned judgment, to permit the petitioner to seek declaration of title regarding the land under the building in question by filing a suit in the Court of general jurisdiction. She, however, would not be entitled to regain the possession in contravention of the orders of the learned Rent Controller which has been upheld by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
Cited by 1 case
- RAHIM SHAH Versus KASSIM 1992 MLD 1751