2026 CLC 594 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

ABDUL GHAFOOR VS Mst. SAKINA S.15---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9---Ejectment petition---Oral tenancy---Relationship of landlord and tenant, denial of---Burden of proof---Landlord has to be prove his land-lordship and existence of relationship with the tenant---Confusion regarding ownership of demised premises---Effect---Rent Controller lacking jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes---Civil court being the proper forum---Delay of landlord in seeking eviction of tenant---Effect---The brief facts were that the petitioner (purported landlord) filed a rent application under S.15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (the SRPO), claiming ownership demised premises, and alleging that respondent (purported tenant) was his tenant who defaulted in rent since 1994, seeking eviction and arrears---The respondents denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, contending that no written rent deed or proof of rent payment existed---Both the Rent Controller and Appellate Court dismissed the petitioner's claim, holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established, leading to the filing of present constitutional petition by the purported landlord---Held: It was clear from the evidence of parties that respondent (purported tenant) did not pay any rent to the petitioner (purported landlord) in respect of demised premises and petitioner remained silent for four years and did not take any effort to vacate the premises---The parties were already under litigation over title of demised premises and rent court thus could not determine the status of ownership of parties---Petitioner lodged claim of ownership of demised premises and landing the same on rent as owner---He was burdened to prove his claim through a solid and reliable evidence that he was landlord which he failed to discharge---Moreover, he claimed that demised premises was rented out on 01.09.1994, per his claim rent for one month only was paid to him but he remained silent until 27.08.1999 when the present rent application was filed---Pleadings of parties created a confusion regarding the ownership of demised premises which could not be settled by Rent Controller and fell within the jurisdiction of Civil Court---In the said circumstances, it was incumbent upon petitioner to agitate his claim of ownership before civil court but he did not---Contrary respondents filed suit seeking declaration of ownership of demised premises---Trial Court decreed the suit partly in favor of respondents and petitioner did not challenge the decree of Trial Court by way of appeal which attained finality against him---The courts below rightly resolved that title of the demised premises was under dispute and court of Rent Controller was not the forum for adjudication of such claim---It was obligatory upon the petitioner (purported landlord) to prove existence of relationship of landlord and tenant---The case of the petitioner fell outside the purview of provisions of SRPO 1979 thus rent application was not maintainable and concurrent findings of courts below were in accordance with law---Constitutional petition being devoid of merits was dismissed, in circumstances.