1994 CLC 2017 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

MUHAMMAD HANIF VS MUHAMMAD AFZAL West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959--13 , West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 ----S.13---Ejectment of shop was sought by landlord on grounds of default in rent and personal bona fide need for setting up of his personal business therein---Tenant submitted his defence by repudiating the tenancy and asserted that the landlord through his father (attorney) had agreed for the sale of the shop to him and received a substantial amount as advance through deed in writing with the consideration that from the date of said agreement, tenant will not pay the monthly rent to the landlord and hold the shop under agreement to sell only---Agreement to sell was not properly proved in evidence by tenant--Tenant failed to produce necessary evidence fir proving execution of agreement to sell by the attorney of the landlord---Neither the scribe nor the marginal witness to the alleged deed could be produced by the tenant--Enough time was given to the tenant for production of his defence evidence--Tenant unnecessarily delayed production of his defence and the Rent Controller closed his evidence because of his delaying tactics and found that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and ordered ejectment of tenant---Appeal against order of Rent Controller also failed--Tenant, however: on the basis of alleged agreement for sale of shop instituted a civil suit for completion of the sale-of the shop in his favour---Required courtfee having not been paid on the plaint of the suit, Trial Court called upon the tenant to meet the deficiency by a specified date which he failed to do in time---Trial Court, in consequence of default by tenant rejected the plaint in suit---Tenant filed a second suit for specific performance of agreement to sell in his favour---Final judgment in the suit for specific performance of alleged agreement to sell rested with the Civil Court and the observations made in the judgment of Rent Controller as well as District Judge in appeal was not to influence same in its final decision of the Civil Court before it---Trial Court, in spite of eviction order passed by Rent Controller was free to decide on merits the question of protection of possession of the tenant in the shop in accordance with law---High Court dismissed second appeal against the order of Rent Controller in limine with observations that tenant was allowed two weeks'time to approach the Civil Court for interim protection of his possession in the shop, meanwhile tenant would not be disturbed in his possession of the shop.