2019 YLR 1126 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

MUHAMMAD AHSAN VS SHAHID KHAN YOUSUFZAI S. 17---eviction of tenant---Wilful default---Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by tenant---Scope---Evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties where tenant simply denied the relationship--- Scope--- Petitioner/ landlord contended that he was absolute and exclusive owner of two shops (rented premises) which were let out to the respondent on verbal terms---Landlord submitted that tenant was not paying rent since April 2014 and had not increased the rent despite requests---Respondent/tenant contended that two Courts below had rightly dismissed the eviction petition as he (petitioner) failed to produce any document in support of his ownership of rented premises---Validity--- Respondent / tenant had produced, before the High Court, a copy of lease deed bearing a date of year 2017 in his support to challenge the rival fact that the petitioner was owner of demised property---Said mischievously carved instrument was not present/ available before the Courts below---Both the Courts below upheld the occupancy of the demised shops by the respondent as said Courts were seemingly obsessed with the idea that no relationship of landlord/tenant existed between the parties---Respondent had denied the very status of landlord subsequent to his induction in the premises as tenant by the petitioner---Such stance had disentitled the respondent from seeking equitable relief in eviction petition, rather outcome of the eviction petition would be based on the evaluation of evidence produced by the rival parties ---If the evidence of the landlord relating to his entitlement was better in quality and quantity and the tenant had simply denied relationship and claimed that he was not occupant of rented premises owned by landlord but no evidence was brought on record to legitimize his occupancy, Courts were bound to give favour to the landlord---High Court, after consideration of the material on record and the evidence, reached to the conclusion that both the orders of the Courts below were flawed on account of non-application of judicial mind---High Court set aside the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below with direction to the tenant to handover possession to the landlord---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.