ABDUL WAHID vs EID MUHAMMAD and 2 others
This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal arising from concurrent findings in rent ejectment proceedings and subsequent civil litigation regarding the ownership of a property. The petitioner, having been ordered to vacate the premises by the Rent Controller on the finding that a landlord-tenant relationship existed, unsuccessfully challenged this order through an appeal to the District Judge and a subsequent writ petition in the High Court. While the writ petition was pending, the petitioner initiated separate civil suits claiming ownership of the same property, which were also dismissed by the trial court, appellate court, and the High Court in revision. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could re-litigate the issue of property ownership in a civil suit after the Rent Controller had already determined the matter in ejectment proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the ownership issue was finally decided in the rent proceedings. The key principle laid down is that where a party fails to reserve the right to agitate a question of title in a civil court during rent proceedings, they are precluded from re-canvassing that same issue through separate civil litigation.
- Can a party re-litigate the issue of property ownership in a civil suit after it has been determined in rent ejectment proceedings?
- Does the failure to reserve the right to agitate title in a civil court during rent proceedings preclude subsequent civil litigation on the same issue?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The facts necessary for the disposal of these two petitions for special leave to appeal are as follows:
2. Abdur Razzaq, father of respondent No,1 in C.P. No,949, moved an application before the Rent Controller against the petitioner for his ejectment from House No,111-A, Block No,1, Bhalwal. The petitioner resisted the application mainly on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. His case was that the house in his possession bore No,103- A and that he had purchased the same in an auction held by Settlement Authorities. After a proper trial, the Rent Controller found that the house in dispute belonged to Abdur Razzaq and the petitioner was a tenant under him. On the basis of this finding he allowed the application and directed the ejectment of the petitioner. From the order of the Rent Controller the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was dismissed and the findings of the learned Rent Controller were affirmed. The petitioner took the matter in Constitutional jurisdiction to the High Court but his writ petition was dismissed.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner brought two suits with regard to the same property as was in dispute in the ejectment proceedings claiming that he was the owner thereof.
He alleged that the said property had fallen down and that the respondents in the two suits were preventing him from re-constructing a structure on the site. The suits were dismissed by the trial Court and the petitioner's appeals before the Additional District Judge and the revision petitions before the High Court also failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. The question whether the property in dispute belonged to the petitioner or Abdur Razzaq was finally decided in the proceedings before the Rent Controller. He did not get his right to agitate this question in a Civil Court reserved in these proceedings or in the writ petition preferred by him. It is now too late for him to recanvass the same question by separate suits. Reference in this context is invited to the judgment in Rahmatullah v. Ali Muhammad 1983 SCMR 1064. These petitions are without any merit and are hereby dismissed.