GEORGE MASIH And Another vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JHELUM
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts ordering the eviction of the petitioners from the disputed property. The respondents had filed an ejectment application on the grounds of default, personal need, damaging the property, and subletting. The petitioners resisted the application, denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and alleging that the property had been sold to petitioner No.2 under an agreement to sell. The core legal question was whether the denial of the landlord's title and the assertion of an agreement to sell ousted the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and warranted the dismissal of the ejectment application. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference. The Court laid down the principle that mere assertion of ownership or a rival title, unsupported by valid established transfer, does not extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship where concurrent findings of fact establish the same.
- Whether the denial of a landlord's title by a tenant automatically ousts the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant be re-appraised by the Supreme Court?
- Whether an alleged agreement to sell terminates the tenancy and justifies the dismissal of an ejectment application?
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the order, dated 20-12- 1989 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi.
2. The respondents 3 and 4 filed ejectment application against the petitioners on the ground of default, personal need and damaging the property and subletting it. The application was contested by the petitioners. The petitioner No.2 contended that in fact the house in question was sold to him for Rs.50,000 and that an amount of Rs.20,000 was received by the respondent Hayat Masib. It was stated that the tenancy in view of the agreement terminated on 26-12-1983. The Rent Controller framed the issue with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant. The ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller on 6-8-1988. The petitioners' appeal before the Additional District Judge, Jhelum, was dismissed on 3-5-1988. The petitioners then filed a Constitution Petition in the High Court which was also dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have denied the title of the respondents therefore it was proper for the Courts below to have rejected the ejectment application with the direction to respondent No.3 to file a civil suit. He further submitted that the petitioner No.2 had purchased the property in question from the respondent No.3, therefore, the tenancy had terminated.
3. The Courts below have considered the evidence on record and repelled the contention of the petitioners for sound reasons. The petitioner No.2 had filed a civil suit claiming to be the owner of the house in dispute basing his contention that the respondent No.3 had agreed to sell the house in question to him. As admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 is the son and the petitioner No.2 is the father. The same facts have been re-agitated by the petitioner in the second round of litigation when the eviction of the petitioners A was sought. The facts have been properly appreciated by the Courts below. It has been established that the house in question was let out to the petitioner No.1 but meanwhile he brought in his father petitioner No.2 who occupied a portion of the house. The Courts below have appraised the evidence on record. The relationship of landlord and tenant has been established. There are concurrent findings of facts. The evidence does not require re-appraisal by this Court.
4. No point of law is involved in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.