SHAUKAT ALI. vs Syed SHAFAQAT AHMED and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority, which ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed property on the grounds of default and damage. The core legal question concerns whether the Rent Controller erred in ordering eviction and failing to refer the matter to a civil court when the relationship of landlord and tenant and the respondent's title were allegedly disputed. The Supreme Court held that where the oral tenancy is duly established by evidence and the tenant was inducted by the landlord, the tenant is estopped from questioning the landlord's title, and the Rent Controller is competent to decide the matter without relegating the parties to a civil court. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal declined, reaffirming that a tenant cannot challenge the title of their lessor.
- Whether a tenant can question the title of the landlord by whom they were inducted into the property?
- Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant based on oral evidence without referring the matter to a Civil Court?
- Can a tenant who takes a false plea and fails to pay rent be ordered to be evicted on a preliminary issue?
ORDER
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 21-9-1998, passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,6451 of 1995.
2. Brief facts are that respondent Abdul Aziz, filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner from the property, in dispute, on the ground of default and damage to the property.
3. In view of the pleadings of the parties, issues framed thereunder the evidence led by them, the learned Rent Controller, allowed the application vide order dated 13-10-1991. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 25-4-1995.
Same was the fate of the writ petition filed by the Petitioner, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 21-9-1998. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties, therefore, the Rent Controller was not right in ordering the eviction of the tenant/petitioner. He argued that the title of the respondent was doubtful, therefore, the Rent Controller should have directed the respondent to approach the Civil Court in the first instance. Reliance in support thereof was placed on Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad (1983 SCM R 1064). The contention is devoid of any force. The learned Rent Controller, in view of the evidence adduced before him, was satisfied that relationship of landlord and tenant was established between the parties beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, it was not necessary to refer the matter to the Civil Court. It would be advantageous to reproduce paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus:- "As noted supra, the oral tenancy is proved by the evidence of the respondent which had been correctly appreciated by the Rent controller as well as by the appellate authority. The petitioner having been inducted as a tenant cannot question the title of the respondent. Taking a false plea and not claiming payment of rent for the disputed period, the learned Rent Controller rightly ordered his forthwith eviction on the decision of preliminary issue. The findings recorded by the two Courts below do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or error of law, hence no ground is shown for seeking interference. Resultantly, this writ petition being without merit is dismissed. The petitioner is allowed a period of three months to deliver vacant possession of the rented premises to the respondent."
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material available on record, we find no legal infirmity or flaw with the impugned judgment, warranting interference by this Court.
6. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave declined.