Citation Name: 2023 CLC 2140 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MISTARY SHAHID KARIM vs ADDITIONAL DIS

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 CLC 2140 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MISTARY SHAHID KARIM VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE Ss. 19 & 22---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 115---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 111(g)(2)---Ejectment proceedings---Rule of estoppel---Where a person enters upon a premises as a tenant under one of the co-sharer of the property, he continues to be a tenant till such time either the tenancy is terminated by an express agreement between the landlord and tenant or he surrenders the possession---However, if during the subsistence of tenancy, a tenant purchases a share from a co-owner, his status as a tenant does not cease to exist---Tenant during subsistence of tenancy, cannot question title of landlord as it stood at commencement of tenancy---If tenant desires to question, he must first surrender possession to landlord and then dispute his title---Person entering premises as tenant can not be permitted to deny that status as estoppel under Art. 115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, would operate and principle "once a tenant always a tenant" would apply---Once relationship of tenancy was proved, at once Art. 115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 would come into play. Citation Name: 2023 CLC 2140 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MISTARY SHAHID KARIM VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE Ss. 19 & 22---Eviction of tenant---Landlord and tenant, relationship of---Proof---Petitioner/tenant assailed eviction order on the plea that no relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant existed---Validity---Record showed the respondents as owner in the khata where the rented premises was situated---Petitioner in his application for leave to contest admitted the stance of the respondents that their predecessor filed an ejectment petition against him which was concluded in shape of compromise---Courts below while deciding the ejectment petition based their findings upon said proceedings and concluded that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties---From perusal of record it appeared that predecessor of respondents filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner whereby, he claimed that petitioner got the rented premises through a lease agreement---From perusal of ejectment petition, lease agreement and rough site plan it appeared that the same description of the rented premises was given against which present ejectment petition had been filed---Petitioner filed contesting written reply and predecessor of the respondents filed replication---During the proceedings of said ejectment petition, parties of said ejectment petition arrived at a compromise which was brought on record---In the light of said compromise, ejectment petition was disposed of---In compromise deed, petitioner accepted the relationship of landlord and tenant with predecessor of the respondents---Petitioner got recorded his statement and during cross-examination admitted that the ejectment petition of respondents was with regard to the same property against which predecessor of the respondents filed ejectment petition---Petitioner also admitted that he did not purchase any portion from the rented premises from predecessor of the respondents or from respondents---From scanning of said evidence it was established that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between petitioner and the predecessor of respondents---After demise of predecessor, the respondents stepped into his shoes and became landlord of the petitioner---Once petitioner acknowledged himself to be tenant of the appellant in the suit shop the principle of estoppel would come into play debarring the tenant/respondent to deny the title of his landlord---Courts below keeping in view the evidence available on the record had rightly concluded that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties---Writ petition having no merits was dismissed.

Citation Name: 2023 CLC 2140 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MISTARY SHAHID KARIM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE Ss — 2023 CLC 2140 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLC