PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB, Through DISTRICT COLLECTOR, FAISALABAD And Other vs Kh. MUHAMMAD ILYAS

ORDER

RANA BHAGWANDAS, J. - Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 11.11.1999 of the learned Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent findings of fact recorded by learned Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority in an eviction application on the ground of default in payment of rent under the provisions of Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, 1959).

2. Respondent sought eviction of the appellants who are running a school in Property No. 8-B, Peoples Colony, Faisalabad after acquiring ownership from its previous owner by virtue of a sale- deed dated 17.11.1985 and after the service of statutory notice in terms of Section 13- A of the Ordinance, 1959. It was his case that as landlord he served requisite notice upon the appellants demanding the payment of rent but as the appellants paid no heed to his lawful demand he was obliged to institute the eviction application on or about 18.10.1988.

3. In the written reply filed by the appellants ownership of the respondent was disputed and it was claimed that the property belonged to the Government which was being utilized for the purposes of Government Girls Public High School. In essence relationship of landlord and tenant was denied.

There was no specific denial as regards the service of statutory notice under the Ordinance, 1959 as well as the execution of conveyance deed in favour of the respondent.

4. Both the parties added evidence. On assessment, learned Rent Controller held the respondent as landlord of the premises. He found relationship of landlord and tenant in favour of the respondent and consequent upon wilful default in payment of rent directed eviction of the appellants vide order dated 25.7.1995. Appellants first appeal before the learned Additional District Judge as also the second appeal before the High Court failed vide judgments dated 22.5.1996 and 11.11.1999 respectively, hence the instant petition for leave to appeal.

5. At the hearing learned counsel for the appellants vigorously contended that the property in dispute was being used as Girls High School by one Mst. Dil Afroze but, by virtue of the Privately- Managed Schools and Colleges (Taking Over) Regulation, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as MLR 118) w.e.f. 1.10.1972 its assets, liabilities, obligations and management vested in the Government. He further submitted that since the appellants had disputed the title of the respondent, proper course for the Tribunals below as well as the High Court was to direct the respondent to obtain a declaration of his title from a competent Court of law rather than deciding this complicated question in ejectment proceedings which involve a summary inquiry. Reliance was placed on Rehmatullah Vs. Ali Muhammad (1983 SCM R 1064) and Muhammad Hussain Vs. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 1988 SC 731).

6. Submissions of the learned counsel are completely misconceived and untenable at law. It is well-settled and judicially recognized that under MLR 118 while the control, management and supervision of the privately managed Colleges and School taken over by the Government, properties in which such institutions ere housed did not vest iq the Government as evidently no compensation bad been paid to the previous management as well as the owner! Of the properties for such take-over. Reliance is placed on Province of Punjab Vs. Khan Muhammad (1980 SCMR SS8) which furnishes a complete answer to the plea raised.

7. Learned High Court after taking into consideration the contention of the appellants that Mst. Dil Afroze was the owner of the property at the relevant the observed that her own statement Wore the Rent Controller contradicted the position taken by the appellants. Indeed she had fairly conceded that the school was run in the tenanted premises at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- which was increased to Rs. 3,000/- per month. She added that the rent was being received which was later withheld. Learned High Court further observed that in view of evidence of the appellants themselves, relationship of landlord and tenant between the previous owner and the appellants was established; that the property stood transferred in the name of the respondent; that it being so, relationship of landlord and tenant came into existence by operation of law and since the appellants had defaulted in payment of rent, they were liable to be ejected as directed by the Learned Controller as also by the learned Additional District Judge. Learned Judge in chambers concluded that findings recorded by the Controller as well as the appellate authority did not suffer from misreading of record or error of law.

8. On careful examination of the relevant evidence on record including the statements of the appellants witnesses we are of the view that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below as well as the learned High Court do not suffer from any inherent defect or error or jurisdiction.

Evidently there was no misreading or non-reading of the relevant evidence on record. Conclusions drawn by the Courts as to the relationship between the parties can hardly be termed as arbitrary, whimsical or opposed to the settled principles for appreciation of evidence.

9. We do not find any substance in the appellants plea that the question of title of the respondent being under clouds he should have been directed to have a declaration of his title from a competent Court of plenary jurisdiction. Indeed the principle laid down in Rehmatullah's case (supra) is not at all attracted to the circumstances of the case in hand. Likewise, reference to Muhammad Hussain's case (supra) appears to be misplaced and irrelevant as relationship between the parties was established not only by unimpeachable evidence on record but also by operation of law. Admittedly, appellants did not deny that prior to acquisition of proprietary rights by the respondent rent was being paid to the previous owner, which is a strong circumstance appearing against the appellants and they cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate.

10. From the record it appears that Mst. Dil Afroze had filed a suit for declaration with regard to the property in question impugning the sale in favour of the respondent but the same was dismissed on 11.3.1997. Such decision was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal and civil revision with the logical conclusion that the decision attained finality. It is, therefore, not open to the appellants to re-agitate the issue of title oyer and again without placing on record any material document to demonstrate that the property belonged to the Government. In this view of the matter and the admitted position that the appellants did not tender a single penny to the respondent towards rent for the last fifteen years, they cannot be permitted to assail the concurrent finding of fact recorded by three Courts and to protract their unauthorized occupation over the property of a private citizen who is entitled in law to possess, acquire and deal with such property without any let or hindrance.

11. No case for interference is thus made out with the consequence that leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.