Malik ABDUL QAYYUM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ATTOCK and 8 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld an ejectment order issued under the Urban Rent Restriction Law. The petitioner challenged the ejectment on two primary grounds: first, that he was denied sufficient opportunity to produce evidence; and second, that the respondent had previously described him as a trespasser in a civil suit, thereby negating the landlord-tenant relationship. The Supreme Court rejected the contention regarding lack of opportunity, noting that the petitioner had been granted four opportunities to produce evidence and failed to do so. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner deliberately failed to confront the respondent with the previous civil suit documents during cross-examination. Crucially, the Court held that the petitioner's defense—arguing that as an unauthorized occupant or trespasser, he could not be ejected via the Rent Controller—was legally and morally untenable. Consequently, the Court refused to exercise its discretion to grant leave to appeal, dismissing the petition.
- Can a tenant avoid ejectment proceedings by claiming to be a trespasser rather than a tenant?
- Is a party entitled to relief when they fail to utilize multiple opportunities to produce evidence?
- Does the failure to confront a witness with documentary evidence during cross-examination preclude reliance on that evidence in appeal?
- Urban Rent Restriction Law
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant; against the dismissal by the High Court, of his writ petition wherein an order for his ejectment under the Urban Rent Restriction Law, was challenged.
2. ' Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner's evidence was closed without affording him enough opportunity of hearing. And secondly that in an earlier civil suit the respondent/landlord had described the petitioner as an illegal occupant/trespasser. That being so there was no relationship of landlord and tenant.
3. Regarding the first point it could have sufficed to mention that according to impugned judgment, "at least four opportunities", were allowed to the petitioner to produce his evidence but he failed to do so. The learned Judge in the High Court was satisfied that the plea of lack of opportunity was untenable. However, we may add that the petitioner had no evidence in rebuttal to support his denial of tenancy, therefore, he did not avail all the opportunities. Be that as it may, the only material which the petitioner wanted to produce--copy of the earlier suit filed by the respondent (Annexure 'A' to the Writ Petition), was taken note by the High Court. It was observed that when the respondent entered the witness-box he was not confronted with "Annexure A". And we may add that it was deliberate omission on the part of the petitioner so as to avoid explanation on the part of the respondent. Accordingly the grounds which prevailed with the High Court in the dismissal of petitioner's writ petition arc unexceptionable.
4. We, however, would dismiss this, petition for a discretionary relief; namely, grant of leave to appeal on an additional ground. Learned counsel when questioned to state the petitioner's defence against the respondent's claim for his B ejectment, stated that the petitioner being unauthorised occupant/trespasser could not be ejected by recourse to the Rent Controller. This plea on its face is c based on illegality and to say the least, borders on immoral claim for undeserved again. The exercise of discretion for grant of leave to appeal to the petitioner, therefore, is refused and this petition, accordingly, is dismissed,
Cited by 2 cases
- M. RAFIQUE MALIK vs Mst. SURRIYYA KHANUM and 4 others 1995 CLC 1933
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE Versus ZAHIDA BEGUM 1995 PLD 561