PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English
← Back to rent laws

2026 SCMR 717 SUPREME-COURT

Supreme Court · 2026

Full text

NAWAB KHAN VS MUHAMMAD YOUSAF S.13---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.115---eviction proceedings---Tenant denying landlord's title---Remedy for the tenant---Maintainability of ejectment petition---Scope---Respondents instituted a suit for recovery of produce and ejectment against the petitioners which was decreed; the petitioners' appeal, revision petition, and constitutional petition before the High Court all failed, whereafter they approached the Supreme Court through filing of the present petition---Issue before the Supreme Court was as to "whether the tenant, while retaining possession, could dispute the landlord's title on the basis of an alleged ownership claim, and whether ejectment proceedings in such circumstances remained maintainable?"---Held: Where a person entered into possession as a tenant, he was estopped from disputing the title of the landlord so long as he continues to retain possession under the tenancy---The principle of estoppel was embodied in Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which debarred a tenant from denying the title of the landlord during the continuance of tenancy---Unless and until the tenant established his alleged proprietary rights before a competent forum, the relationship between the parties continued to be regulated by tenancy law---If a tenant disputed the proprietary title of the landlord, he had to first vacate and surrender possession, and only thereafter could contest title---As regards the second question as to maintainability of ejectment proceedings was concerned, even if the tenant asserted acquisition of ownership rights by purchase of a share in the property, such assertion by itself did not render ejectment proceedings incompetent, particularly because the Rent Controller exercised a limited jurisdiction and could not adjudicate upon complicated questions of title---Impugned judgment of the High Court did not warrant any interference---Leave was refused and petition was dismissed, in circumstances.