MUHAMMAD YASIN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BUREWALA Ss — 2023 CLC 86 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

MUHAMMAD YASIN VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BUREWALA Ss.5 & 15---Oral tenancy---Eviction---Right to produce evidence was closed---Constitutional petition---Respondent alleged that suit premises/shop was given on rent to the petitioner being close relative; that petitioner allowed hawkers to use the front of the rented premises; that petitioner stopped making payment of rent to respondent---Petitioner, in his leave to contest, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant---Premises was sold by predecessor-in-interest of the respondents to the petitioner through an oral agreement---Rent Tribunal closed the right of petitioner to produce evidence and finally accepted the eviction petition while determining the rent due---Appeals filed by both parties, were dismissed by appellate Court---Validity---Petitioner submitted that matters had to be decided on merit rather than technicalities; that Rent Tribunal acted harshly while closing his right to produce evidence; that he also filed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell in respect of the suit shop---Respondent contended that the title could not be determined in ejectment proceedings; that at the time of allowing the eviction petition, rate of rent was erroneously fixed; that interim rent was fixed but the arrears of the rent recoverable had been settled---High Court observed that even today the rented premises was, admittedly, in the name of predecessor-in-interest of the respondents as owner---Suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner was concurrently dismissed by both the Courts below and now the matter was pending adjudication before High Court---Petitioner filed suit for specific performance after the date when notice for eviction/recovery of rent was sent by predecessor-in-interest of the respondents to the petitioner---Suit was apparently filed as a counterblast to circumvent the eviction proceedings---Right to produce evidence was closed after providing multiple opportunities to the petitioner to produce the evidence with an explicit warning about the consequences of failure to adduce the same---Recovery of arrears of rent per month was not justified and was much below the amount on which fine had been received by the landlord or the tentative rent, which Rent Tribunal itself determined---Predecessor-in-interest of the respondents made averments in his eviction notice that under oral tenancy, petitioner was occupying the rented premises at the said rate per month, hence the respondents' claim for enhancement of rent was unjustified---Since the hawkers were not using the rented premises rather putting their carts on the public road, the respondents were not entitled to enhance rent on that account---Both the Constitutional petitions were dismissed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD YASIN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BUREWALA Ss — 2023 CLC 86 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLC