MUHAMMAD AMIR vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others
This matter originated as an eviction application filed by the respondent against the petitioners, who were successors-in-interest of the original occupant of a haveli. The petitioners contested the eviction, denying the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and asserting ownership through adverse possession. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, finding no such relationship existed. However, the Additional District Judge, upon appeal, reappraised the evidence, upheld the validity of a rent deed executed by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, and ordered their ejectment. The High Court subsequently declined to interfere with this order. The core legal question was whether the existence of a valid rent deed precludes a claim of adverse possession and establishes the landlord-tenant relationship. The Supreme Court upheld the lower appellate court's decision, affirming that the execution of a rent deed by a predecessor-in-interest effectively negates a claim of adverse possession. The court held that once the validity and genuineness of a rent deed are established by the appellate authority, the occupant cannot claim ownership through adverse possession, thereby justifying an order of eviction.
- Does the execution of a rent deed by a predecessor-in-interest preclude a claim of adverse possession by the successor?
- Can an appellate court reappraise evidence to overturn a Rent Controller's finding regarding the landlord-tenant relationship?
- Is a tenant who executes a rent deed estopped from claiming ownership of the premises through adverse possession?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioners are the successors-in-interest of Muhammad Waris. They were in possession of a haveli in Chiniot. Bashir Ahmad, respondent No,3, filed an application for eviction against them before the Rent Controller on the ground, inter alia, that they were defaulters in the payment of rent. The petitioners resisted the application alleging that they had become owners of the haveli by adverse possession and as such they were not tenants under Bashir Ahmad. The learned Rent Controller framed an issue to the effect whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Both parties led evidence and after considering the same the learned Rent Controller held that the said relationship did not exist between them; accordingly, he dismissed the application. Bashir Ahmad then filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge who reappraised the evidence and came to a contrary view. As the petitioners had not taken up the position that they had paid any rent to Bashir Ahmad, the learned Additional District Judge directed their ejectment from the haveli. The petitioners invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of the learned Additional District Judge but without any success.
2. The main-stay of the case of Bashir Ahmad was the rent deed which Muhammad Waris, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had executed in his favour. The petitioners alleged that it was a forged document. After considering the evidence on record the learned Additional District Judge upheld its validity and genuineness. In the presence of this rent deed the plea that the petitioners had become owners of the haveli through adverse possession could not be accepted.
The High Court was therefore right in not interfering with the order of eviction passed by the learned Additional District Judge. The petition is dismissed.