AHSANUZ ZAMAN vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning proceedings under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, specifically addressing the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No.1. The petitioner occupied a shop purchased by respondent No.1 from a previous owner, to whom the petitioner had previously paid rent. Upon receiving a notice of attornment, the petitioner admitted his tenancy under the previous owner but demanded proof of sale, later resisting eviction on the ground that the land belonged to the Central Government while he owned the structure. The Rent Controller, Additional District Judge, and the High Court concurrently found against the petitioner, establishing the tenancy and ordering eviction for default in rent payment. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the tenancy were supported by sufficient evidence, including the petitioner's own admissions and past rent payments. The petition for leave to appeal was refused, leaving the petitioner at liberty to agitate the question of title before a civil court.
- Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties based on the tenant's admission and previous rent payments?
- Does a tenant who admits tenancy under the previous owner can demand proof of sale before accepting the new landlord?
- Can a question of title to the rented property be resolved in rent proceedings or should it be raised before a civil court?
- Section 13-A, Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The only question for consideration in this petition for special leave to appeal which arises out of the proceedings under the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the petitioner and respondent No,1. The dispute relates to a shop which was in the occupation of the petitioner. It was purchased by respondent No,1 from one Qamar Raza. After purchasing the shop, respondent No,1 served a notice under section 13-A of the said Ordinance upon the petitioner. In reply to the notice the petitioner inter alia admitted that he was a tenant under Qamar Raza but agreed to pay rent only if proof of sale in favour of respondent No,1 was furnished. Subsequently, respondent No,1 filed an application for the eviction of the petitioner on a number of grounds including default in the payment of rent.
The petitioner resisted the application. His case was that the land underneath the shop belonged to the Central Government and the structure thereon had been raised by him. The learned Rent Controller as well as the Additional District Judge rejected his defence and declared him to be a tenant under respondent No,1. As default in the payment of rent was not disputed he was ordered to be evicted. He filed a writ petition in the High Court but it failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The question whether the petitioner was a tenant under respondent No,1 was one of fact. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he had been paying rent to Qamar Raza and had also sent a money order to respondent No,1 by way of rent. In his reply to the notice which respondent No,1 had sent to him after purchasing the shop the petitioner had clearly admitted that he was occupying the shop as a tenant under Qamar Raza. In the circumstances, there was sufficient evidence before the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge to hold that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not a defaulter in the payment of rent. His eviction was, therefore, rightly ordered.
3. As regards the title of respondent No,1 to the shop, he may, if so advised, raise this controversy before a civil Court. Leave is refused.