AADIL NADEEM RIZVI vs GOHAR SIDDIQUE and others
This matter originated as an ejectment petition filed by the respondents against the petitioner under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, based on the ground of default in rent payment. The petitioner contested the petition by denying the respondents' ownership of the suit property and disputing the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Rent Controller, the District Judge, and the Lahore High Court all concurrently ruled in favor of the respondents, affirming the existence of the relationship based on documentary evidence, specifically an 'Iqrarnama' and money order receipts. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, reiterating claims of forgery regarding the respondents' title documents. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Rent Controller is not the appropriate forum to determine complex questions of title, especially when a separate civil suit regarding title is already pending. The Court affirmed the lower courts' findings on the landlord-tenant relationship and declined to interfere with the concurrent factual findings regarding the documents, ultimately granting the petitioner three months to vacate the premises.
- Can a Rent Controller determine questions of title in an ejectment petition?
- Is the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship a factual finding that can be based on documentary evidence like an Iqrarnama and money order receipts?
- Does the pendency of a separate civil suit regarding title preclude a Rent Controller from deciding an ejectment petition based on the landlord-tenant relationship?
- Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959
' KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.--The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed an ejectment petition under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the petitioner, on the ground of default. The petitioner denied that the respondents were the owners. He also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. From the rival claims of the parties relevant issues were framed and tried. The Rent Controller, Bahawalpur held in favour of the existence of relationship and accepted the eviction petition vide judgment dated 1-3-2002. Petitioner's appeal by the District Judge, Bahawalpur was dismissed on 29-4-2002. Petitioner's second appeal (S.A.O. No,7 of 2002) was also dismissed.
Incidentallyagainst the appellate judgment, Province of Punjab (respondent No,5) claiming to be owner of the suit shop also filed appeal (S.A.O. No,14 of2002) which has also been dismissed on 5- 11-2002 by the High Court onthe short ground that this appellant did not challenge the order of the Rent Controller before the District judge. It is the tenant alone who haspreferred this petition for leave to appeal against the consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench.
Respondent No,5 has apparently given up.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has repeatedly urged that the respondents were not the owners of the suit property and that their sale-deed/P.T.O. Is forged.
3. Learned counsel admitted that his suit seeking determination of title is already pending. It is well- settled that question of title is not determined by the Rent Controller. In view of the pendency of the suit, we would not like to comment one way or other on the points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Suffice it to say that the High Court seems to have correctly held in favour of existence of relationship on the basis of `Iqrarnama' (Exh.A.1) and money orders receipts (Exh.A.20 to Exh. A.50).
The submissions that these documents are forged have not been accepted by the three Courts below and after hearing the learned counsel, we find no reason to take a different view.
4. For the above reasons, this petition is hereby dismissed, however, petitioner is granted three months time from today to vacate the premises in question.
Cited by 3 cases
- Muhammad Arif Shah vs Muhammad Ishaq Darzi 2024 PLJ Quetta 87
- Haji HUSSAIN KHAN and another vs Haji ABDULLAH JAN and another 2011 CLC 1613
- NASIM AHMAD KHAN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE 2006 PLD 774