Raja MUHAMMAD SARWAR Through Legal Heirs And Others vs Haji GHULAM
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 25-10-1986, which accepted a second appeal and ordered the eviction of the petitioners from the disputed premises. The respondent had filed an ejectment application claiming to be the transferee of the property, alleging that the petitioners were tenants by operation of law. The petitioners contested the ownership of the respondent and denied the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, asserting they were in unauthorized possession and that the question of title ought to have been resolved by a civil court. The core legal question concerns whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to order eviction where the relationship of landlord and tenant was bona fide denied and the occupant's status was alleged to be unauthorized. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioners require detailed examination, particularly regarding jurisdiction and the necessity of settling title disputes in a civil court when tenancy is denied.
- Does a Rent Controller have jurisdiction to order eviction when the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied?
- Must a question of title regarding a transferred property be settled in a civil court rather than before a Rent Controller?
- Whether unauthorized occupants can be subjected to ejectment proceedings under rent laws without an established tenancy?
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--The respondent Haji Ghulam Mustafa brought an application for the eviction of Raja Muhammad Sarwar and Raja Ghulam Sarwar alleging therein that he was transferee of House No.M-368, Rawalpindi, and a triangular piece of courtyard measuring 4 marlas was also a part of the said house, but are in possession of the respondents since before 1958. By operation of law the petitioners had become tenants of the respondent in respect of the disputed room. In the written statement, the petitioners denied the ownership of the respondent. The learned Rent Controller framed an issue with respect to the relationship of landlord and tenant. By an order dated 19-6-1975 the learned Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition and ordered the eviction of the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge who accepted the same and set aside the order of Rent Controller. It was held by the Additional District Judge that since the petitioners were unauthorised occupants of the premises in question, their ejectment could not be ordered.
2. The respondent filed a second appeal in the High Court which was accepted by the High Court on 25-10-1986. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, the petitioners seek leave to appeal.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there never existed any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioners never acknowledged that they were in possession of the property as tenants as defined in Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The petitioners always disputed the allegation of the respondent that the premises in dispute was transferred to him. On this view of the matter, the learned Rent Controller did not have jurisdiction. The respondent should have settled the question of title in the Civil Court.
The learned counsel has referred to the cross-examination of the respondent wherein he had stated that the petitioners are in unauthorised possession of the disputed property.
4. The contention raised by the learned counsel requires examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
Security Rs.5,000.