MUHAMMAD ARIF MALIK vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE Ss — 2025 CLC 832 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 ARIF MALIK VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE Ss. 15 & 19---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss.58 & 100---Ejectment petition---Relationship of landlord and tenant not established---Simultaneous execution of mortgage and tenancy agreement through a single document by the mortgagor without having any title over the premises in dispute in favour of the respondent, who let the mortgagor retain the possession subject to payment of rent---Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the petitioner---Courts below held the respondent entitled for payment of arrears of rent---Validity---Relationship between the respondent and mortgagor at the most was that of mortgagor and mortgagee and the same could hardly be considered as relationship between a landlord and tenant---Agreements i.e. one to mortgage the property and second to lease out the property were mentioned in one and the same document and an irresistible and vivid conclusion that could be drawn therefrom would be that lease deal was coined merely for the purpose of realizing the interest due on mortgage money, therefore, the amount agreed to be paid as rent could hardly be counted and considered as a rent payable by the tenant to the landlord---Amount that was shown to be received by the respondent was a certain sum of amount to be received for the consideration of amount that was lent to mortgagor, therefore, said amount could hardly be considered as rent amount to be paid by the mortgagor to the mortgagee for the simple reason that the mortgagor still was the owner of the property---A person cannot be the owner and the tenant at the same time---Simultaneous execution of mortgage and lease by the mortgagor was justifiably considered as mechanism/mode for the purposes of realizing due interest on the mortgage money and in such eventuality no relationship of landlord and tenant would come into existence as the lease deed in fact was a device to recover interest on loan---No amount was to be paid as rent more particularly when respondent was not landlord and neither mortgagor nor the petitioner (being legal heir of mortgagor) was tenant as per the provisions of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009---No relationship of landlord and tenant existed between respondent and the mortgagor, thus, lower courts had got no jurisdiction to either proceed in the matter or pass impugned order and judgments---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD ARIF MALIK vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE Ss — 2025 CLC 832 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC