2017 MLD 2106 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Full text

RAHIM MUHAMMAD alias ROHI MUHAMMAD VS Syed NOOR SHAH O. VII, R.2---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 110---Suit for recovery of amount---Arrears of rent in wake of previous eviction proceedings under Rent Restriction law---Defendant had denied relationship of landlord and tenant and had challenged maintainability of the suit and suit being time barred---Maintainability of suit for recovery of arrears of rent---Scope---Appellant/tenant contended that exorbitant arrears of rent without any documentary proof of the rate of rent was illegally claimed by the respondent/plaintiff which was not maintainable and also time barred---Respondent/landlord contended that in previous eviction proceedings against appellant/tenant, the rate of rent was determined by Rent Controller which order was .upheld up to the Supreme Court and that the suit was not time barred as recovery of arrears of rent was governed by Art. 110 of Limitation Act, 1908-¬Validity---Perusal of evidence indicated that no relevant provision of law had been pointed out by the appellant to indicate that under which law, the filing of suit for recovery of arrears was barred---Rent Controller while passing eviction order had passed comprehensive judgment and decree which was upheld up to the Supreme Court, therefore, the suit filed by the respondent was maintainable---Appellant had also challenged the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and rate of rent, which was decided by the Rent Controller so the relationship between the parties existed and the rate of rent had also been determined by the Rent Controller---Findings of Rent Controller on the question of relationship/title, could not be challenged in civil suit---Rent Controller in his order had specifically observed that "the applicants might approach civil court for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 16000/- per month from Jane 2007"---Such findings of the Rent Controller were upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court, therefore, the evidence produced in the present case by the respondent with regard to rate of Rs. 16000/- per month and arrears of rent from June 207 was based on proper appreciation of evidence---Objection raised by appellant for limitation was not tenable as Art. 110 of Limitation Act, 1908 was relevant provision with regard to limitation for arrears of rent, which provided period of three years when the arrears became due---Suit for recovery filed by respondent was within time, though, the respondent had claimed recovery of Rs. 1,475,750/-, but the trial court after proper appreciation of evidence decreed the suit only to the extent of arrears of rent total 87 months at the rate of Rs. 16,000/- per month---Findings of the trial court neither reflected misreading or non-reading of evidence, hence warranted no interference by the High Court-Regular first appeal was dismissed accordingly.