Citation Name: 2024 YLR 824 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDUL WAHID vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDG

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: 2024 YLR 824 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDUL WAHID VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE S. 17(8)--- Eviction petition---Relationship of landlord and tenant, denial of---Scope---Trial Court dismissed the ejectment petition, whereas the appellate Court allowed the ejectment petition---Petitioner, in reply to eviction petition filed by the respondent, categorically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties---Validity---Initially onus to prove the relationship was definitely on respondent which he discharged when he appeared himself as a witness and produced registered sale deed---Once that fact was proved by respondent, the onus shifted upon the petitioner to justify and prove his claim that property was mortgaged in his favour and oral agreement to sell was made---Since respondent had not produced any corroborative evidence in support of his application for leave to contest/reply, thus, his stance could not be considered---If the stance of the petitioner qua mortgage was considered to be correct, a perusal of the documents attached with the present petition would show that the copy of the alleged mortgage deed had been appended with this petition (without permission), contents of which showed that it was executed in 2012 and was for a period of two years---Moreover, it had been mentioned in the said deed that petitioner was retaining the possession as a tenant (in order to deceive the court where the said assertion had been mentioned, the words had been defaced by applying a thumb impression thereon)---Moreover the assertion of mortgage had himself been diluted/belied by the petitioner in his suit for specific performance and permanent injunction filed against the vendor, a copy of which had been appended with this petition (again without permission) in which, on one hand, he asserted that the shop in dispute was mortgaged to him and thereafter in a paragraph of the plaint, he asserted that the vendor orally agreed to sell the shop in dispute to the petitioner---Said assertions would demolish the case of the petitioner with regard to subsistence of any mortgage in view of the fact that if the mortgage was in place why would he enter into an oral agreement to sell with the vendor for the sale of the shop in dispute---Said fact clearly showed that if at all there was any mortgage, it was for two years which came to an end in 2014 and was substituted with an alleged oral agreement to sell---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 824 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDUL WAHID vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE S — 2024 YLR 824 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR