MUHAMMAD RAHMAN vs MUHAMMAD AYUB O — 2025 CLC 1210 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

MUHAMMAD RAHMAN VS MUHAMMAD AYUB O. VI, R. 1---Pleadings---Scope---Pleadings itself is not evidence at all, and pleadings without evidence cannot be taken into consideration as proof of a particular fact nor the evidence without pleadings can substantiate a particular version. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 1210 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAHMAN VS MUHAMMAD AYUB art. 30---Evidence---admission---Portion of a statement not cross-examined is deemed to have been admitted by the other side. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 1210 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAHMAN VS MUHAMMAD AYUB Ss.13 & 14---Eviction of tenant---Default in payment of outstanding rent---Recovery by landlord---Possession of the tenant over the premises after expiry of period of tenancy---Disappearance of tenant from the proceedings before the Rent Controller---Partial acceptance of application to the extent of ejectment and dismissal of appeal of tenant for recovery of outstanding rent---Stance of the tenants was that after the expiry of tenancy possession of the premises was handed over to the landlord with payment of all dues---Validity---Possession of the tenants over the rented premises till January 2024 had been proved and they could not prove the payment of rent for the said period, thus, in such an eventuality it was not only unjustified to disentitle the landlord from recovery of the outstanding rent at admitted rate but also against the law and the findings of the Rent Controller that the landlord could not prove the outstanding rent against the tenants were also against the facts because once it was proved that the tenants were in possession of the shop even after the expiry of tenancy, then it was their obligation to pay the rent at the rate admitted by them---Payment of the rent of the rented property was the duty of the tenants to justify their possession otherwise their possession was illegal and their status would be of the trespasser because the possession of the rented premises could only be justified through payment of rent---Findings of the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation was also against the law in juxtaposition with the possession of the tenants---Stance of tenants was required to be substantiated through cogent, reliable and convincing evidence, which was lacking on their part, thus, their submission to the extent of contents of the written reply for proof of handing over the possession of the rented premises was misconceived---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 1210 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAHMAN VS MUHAMMAD AYUB Ss.13 & 14---Eviction of tenant---Default in payment of outstanding rent---Solitary statement of landlord on oath not cross-examined by the tenants---Evidentiary value---Solitary statement of the landlord had not been cross-examined and whatever was deposed by him had gone unrebutted---In such circumstances, sole statement of the landlord could be considered if it was inspiring confidence---Constitutional petition was allowed.

MUHAMMAD RAHMAN vs MUHAMMAD AYUB O — 2025 CLC 1210 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC