FAYYAZ AHMED vs SPECIAL JUDGE (RENT) S — 2025 CLC 1705 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.

FAYYAZ AHMED VS SPECIAL JUDGE (RENT) S. 17---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, Rr.100, 101 & 103---Ejectment proceedings---Execution of eviction order---Objection application by the tenant, adjudication of---Scope---While adjudicating objection application of the tenant the court was obligated to frame issues and record evidence in order to resolve disputes raised by the tenant---Petitioner (landlord) filed an ejectment petition against respondent No.2 (tenant) regarding the shop in question resulting in passing of eviction order---Respondent No.2/tenant claimed to be a tenant of petitioner with respect to shop No.986-A and raised grievance that in execution of eviction order the possession of his rented premises was taken, whereas, eviction order was passed with respect to a different shop bearing No. 986 against another person 'MS'---Tenant's objection application filed under O. XXI, R. 100, C.P.C. was allowed by the Rent Controller directing restoration of possession---Held: It was an imperative aspect of the matter that such order was passed without proper investigation, framing of issues, or recording of evidence---Petitioner/landlord was admittedly the owner of two shops having No. 986 and 986-A---He had filed ejectment petition against another person 'MS'---As per stance of the petitioner/landlord, he rented out property measuring 32x13 sq. ft. to one 'MS', after removing partition wall between two adjacent shops---The number of shop given in eviction petition was No. 986, however, the rent agreement was with respect to shop No. 986-A, which was relied upon---The agreement clearly stipulated that the property subject of rent agreement was measuring 32x13 sq. ft---The number of property mentioned therein was No. 986-A---Somehow, respondent No.2/tenant who instituted the objection application under O. XXI R. 100 of C.P.C., previously approached the Rent Controller with an application claiming that petitioner/landlord had executed a rent agreement in his favour---He claimed that he was tenant in the shop which was subject of eviction-petition and sought to be impleaded in the array of parties---This application, under O. I, R. 10 of C.P.C. was rejected---Then respondent No.2/tenant never raised any challenge to the said order until the conclusion of trial---It was admitted position that 'MS' maintained in ejectment proceedings that he was tenant of shops subject to eviction proceeding until 13.08.2000 and then respondent No.2/tenant obtained the same shops on rent under separate arrangement---Thereafter, 'MS' stopped pursuing the proceeding and he was proceeded ex-parte---Statements of three witnesses were recorded in support of the stance of ejectment petitioner---These statements went un-rebutted as they were never cross-examined---Finally, the ejectment-petition was allowed---The disputes raised by respondent No.2/tenant in his objection filed under O. XXI, R. 100 of C.P.C. clearly involved such questions which should not have been resolved in his favour in a summary manner---The impugned order without due investigation and proper exercise of jurisdiction could cause miscarriage of justice---The case was remanded to the Rent Controller for decision afresh, after framing relevant issues and permitting the parties to lead their evidence---The impugned order and the subsequent orders passed by Rent Controller were set-aside, in circumstances.

FAYYAZ AHMED vs SPECIAL JUDGE (RENT) S — 2025 CLC 1705 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC