MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs Chaudhry MUSHTAQ AHMED
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed in limine the petitioner's Second Appeal against concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge regarding an ejectment order. The core legal question was whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties, given the petitioner's claim of ownership based on a rent receipt for ground rent paid to the Lahore Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the three lower courts regarding the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship were supported by the evidence on record. The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on the ground rent receipt, noting it was obtained during the pendency of proceedings and failed to disprove the respondent's case. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal. However, by consent of the parties, the Court granted the petitioner six months to vacate the premises, subject to specific conditions regarding the payment of rent and arrears, and the surrender of possession without further litigation.
- Can a tenant challenge the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship by producing a ground rent receipt obtained during the pendency of ejectment proceedings?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Section 13, Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 10-2-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in S.A.O. No, 88 of 1992, filed by the petitioner against the concurrent judgments of the two Courts i.e, the learned Rent Controller, Lahore's order dated 18-3-1991 and learned Additional District Judge, Lahore's judgment dated 20-6-1992, affirming the above order of the Rent Controller for grant of ejectment in respect of the suit shop, dismissing the same in limine.
2. The brief facts are that the respondent filed a rent case under section 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, on the basis of averment that the suit shop was rented out to one Haji Aslam, the brother of the present petitioner, at a monthly rent of Rs,130 under a rent note executed by him on 23-8-1971. After his death, the respondent occupied the above shop as a tenant at monthly rent of Rs,200. It was further averred that the petitioner had not paid rent since April, 1983. It was also averred that the shop was required for the personal use of respondent's son, Riaz, who was jobless.
3. The above rent case was resisted by the petitioner inasmuch as written statement was filed, in which it was pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also averred that factually the shop was constructed by the petitioner's father 50 years ago and he was in possession of the same as the owner thereof. -
4. The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed the following two Issues:- "(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the,. Parties? (O.P.A.)
' Relief."
' After recording evidence and hearing
5. Against the above order, the petitioner filed M.C.A No, 35 of 1991, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, by his above Judgment. Thereupon, he filed the above SA.O., which has been dismissed by the learned Judge in chambers through the impugned judgment. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
6. In support of the above petition, Mr. Shahid Hussain Kadri, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that since the petitioner had produced the rent receipt for the payment of ground rent to Lahore Municipal Corporation in respect of the land on which the suit shop was constructed, the three Courts below were not justified in recording the above finding of Issue No,1 in the affirmative.
7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had obtained above rent receipt from Lahore Municipal Corporation during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings. He has not been able to bring anything on record to disprove the case of the respondent as pleaded in the rent case. In our view, the Courts below have rightly discarded the above piece of evidence. The concurrent finding of the three Courts on the question of relationship seems to be in consonance with the evidence on record. No exception can be taken to the same. Leave is, accordingly, refused. However, at the request of the petitioner who is present in person, and with the consent of the respondent who is also present, the petitioner is allowed six months time to vacate the suit shop from today on the following conditions:-
(i) That the petitioner undertakes to hand over the vacant possession of the suit shop to the respondent upon the expiry of above period of six months without waiting for the issuance of a notice or a writ of ejectment by the Rent Controller, the breach of this undertaking will amount to breach of the order of this Court.
(ii) That the petitioner shall pay the rent of the above period of six months and shall also pay the amount as arrears of rent which he had deposited with Lahore Municipal Corporation to the respondent within one month from today.
(iii) That the respondent shall not press his suit for the arrears now pending in the Civil Court upon receipt of the above amount.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL ZAHIR vs JAFFAR KHAN----ResPondent 2010 SCMR 189