Sheikh MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and anothers vs Sub.Mjor (Retd.) Mir BADAR DIN
This matter concerns an ejectment application filed by the respondent against the petitioners, which resulted in an eviction order subsequently upheld by the Appellate Court and the High Court. The petitioners challenged these orders, contending that the premises in dispute were evacuee property and thus the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners had obtained the premises on lease from the respondent, and therefore, were estopped from challenging the landlord's title. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners, not claiming any title to the premises themselves, lacked the standing of an aggrieved person to contest the ownership status or the character of the property. The Court also highlighted that the petitioners had no right to urge arguments on behalf of third parties regarding the property's character. Consequently, finding no merit in the petitioners' contentions and noting that possession had already been delivered in execution of the decree, the Court refused leave to appeal.
- Is a tenant estopped from challenging the title of their landlord?
- Does a tenant have the right to challenge the character of a property as 'evacuee property' if they do not claim title to the premises themselves?
- Can a person who does not claim title to the premises in dispute be considered an 'aggrieved person' entitled to challenge a decree?
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. ' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The respondents brought an application for ejectment of the petitioners from the premises in dispute. The ejectment order was passed against the petitioners.
2. The order of eviction was maintained by the Appellate Court. The petitioners challenged these orders in a Constitution Petition before the High Court but the same was dismissed.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the premises in dispute is an evacuee property and therefore the relationship of the landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties.
4. It is also an admitted feature of the case that the petitioner had obtained on lease the premises in question from the respondent. Therefore the petitioner is estopped to challenge the title of his landlord.
5. ' The learned counsel next contended that by the impugned judgment of the High Court the Settlement Authorities are debarred to initiate the proceedings regarding the character of the property. The petitioner is nobody to urge on behalf of a third party. The learned counsel has admitted that in execution of the decree the possession has since been delivered to the respondent landlord.
6. ' He next contended that the claim of the respondent was that he inherited property from his sister who had pruchased the plot and constructed house over it. The respondent filed suit for declaration that he was the only surviving heir of his sister Dr. Zenab Jamal. The suit was decreed.
7. The petitioner filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. To set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that the property was evacuee property. The learned trial Judge set aside the ex parte decree but the learned District Judge set side the judgment of the trial Court. The petitioners' petition was dismissed by the High Court. The learned counsel has admitted that the petition for leave to appeal was also dismissed by this Court. The petitioner does not claim title to the premises in dispute therefore he is not an aggrieved person. He has no right to challenge the title of his landlord. There is, therefore, no force in this petition and leave to appeal is refused.