2018 CLCN 96 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Full text

ALI HASSAN VS AMIN ULLAH 1992 SCMR 1170, 1992 SCMR 1290, 2003 SCMR 1476, PLD 1984 SC 17, PLD 1991 SC 242, PLD 1992 SC 401, PLD 2009 SC 453, S. 13---eviction petition---Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant---Willful default by tenants---Scope---Pendency of suit for specific performance filed by tenants---Effect---Bona fide personal need---Scope---Non-mentioning of version alleged by the tenants in pleadings as well as in their evidence---Effect---Petitioners/tenants contended that they had entered into agreement to sell regarding demised shops for which they had made substantial payment to another tenant who had admittedly purchased from the landlords the property in question---Landlords contended that they needed demised shops situated at the ground floor of the building, for the expansion of their hotel business being run at upper floor of the same building---Validity---Manager (Munshi)/attorney of the landlords appeared before the Rent Tribunal and remained consistent, inter alia, that though landlords had sold portion of building to one tenant (other than the petitioners) but the properties under the possession of petitioners had not been sold to them(petitioners)---Said attorney was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but he remained stuck to said version, however, petitioners during cross-examination had not denied their status as tenants and had been paying rent till February, 2012 and they defaulted after alleged execution of the agreement to sell between the parties---Petitioners during cross-examination, also admitted that the alleged payments made to said tenant-turned-owner were neither mentioned in their reply nor in their affidavits---All petitioners made similar statements that they were cheated by said tenant-turned-owner, however, not even oblique reference was made towards him in the replication as well as in the affidavits before Rent Tribunal---Petitioners had based their claim on the basis of alleged sale agreement which was the subject matter of suit for specific performance---Authenticity of sale agreement was yet to be proved at the trial before competent court of law and till then their tenancy under the landlords could not be denied---Trial Court had rightly rejected the evidence of the petitioners as their exhibited documents i.e. cheques and receipts, having not been proved, could not be relied upon---No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned judgments passed by the two courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.