RESHAM BIBI and another vs ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, KHANEWAL and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an ejectment matter where the respondents sought the eviction of the petitioners, who contested the proceedings by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller or Trial Court decided against them, prompting an appeal by the respondents. The appellate court accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Trial Court for a fresh decision. The petitioners challenged the remand order through a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. Upon further challenge before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that they had been in possession since partition without paying rent and that ownership was not established. The Supreme Court heard the arguments and noted that the petitioners failed to address the issuance of the Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.D.) in favour of the respondents' predecessor-in-interest. The Court held that since the case stands remanded to the Trial Court, the petitioners remain at liberty to raise all available defenses. Finding no legal justification to interfere with the remand order, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
- Whether a remand order passed by an appellate court in an ejectment matter warrants interference by the Supreme Court when parties are at liberty to raise all defenses?
- Can a tenant deny the relationship of landlord and tenant without addressing the issuance of a Provisional Transfer Order in favor of the landlord's predecessor-in-interest?
RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.-- Facts leading to the tiling of this petition are that respondents Nos. 2 to 4 had tiled a petition for ejectment against the petitioners. The petitioners contested the ejectment petition on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist. The other issue of default in payment of rent was not touched. The respondents filed an appeal which was accepted and case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision in the light of observations given by the "Appellate Court. The petitioners challenged the appellate Court's order by filing a writ petition which was dismissed by a learned Judge in chambers on 26.10.1999. In the present petition, judgment of the learned Judge in chambers has been impugned.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were in possession of the property in dispute since partition and never paid rent to any one nor any body has claimed rent till filing of the petition. It was argued that the respondents have failed to establish their ownership of the property.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the file. The learned counsel has argued the case on merits but did not address us as far the issuance of P.T.D. In favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 is concerned. The case has been remanded to the learned Trial Court. The petitioners would be at liberty to take up any point, they wish in their defence. We have not been able to find anything which could prompt us to interfere with the remand order. Resultantly, the petition fails which is dismissed.