2017 CLCN 201 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

MUHAMMAD ASIF VS The VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE S. 13---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 114 & 115---eviction petition---Written admission of tenancy by the tenant---Tenant attributing said admission to mistake of his counsel---Relationship between parties as landlord and tenant---Estoppel, principle of---Applicability---Landlord/respondent contended that once admitting relationship of tenancy through reply to notice of landlord, tenants could not take back his version---Petitioners/tenants denied tenancy contending that their late father had purchased demised property from late father of landlord through oral agreement to sell---Petitioners/tenants attributed their earlier admission to the mistake of their counsel---Validity---Definition of estoppel was clear that the intention was necessary---In the present case, petitioners/tenants forcefully alleged that they did not instruct their counsel regarding the admission in the reply---Petitioners brought on record the legal notice issued to them, in which landlord leveled allegations of subletting and encroachment of back portion of shop---If the counsel was responsible for some professional dishonesty or misconduct, it was obligatory for the petitioners to take action against him before the appropriate forum---Without doing anything in this respect, only words of the petitioners regarding the denial of such unambiguous and unqualified admission was not sufficient---Unambiguous admission of tenancy existed in the reply of notice by the counsel of the petitioners---Neither the petitioners nor their (late) father tried to get executed a conveyance deed (for oral sale) or any documentation regarding the property in question---Petitioners remained unsuccessful to dispute the relationship upto the Supreme Court---Unambiguous admission of tenancy by the petitioner in their reply of the legal notice came in the way of the petitioner for denial of tenancy according to Art. 115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and there remained no impediment for Rent Controller to declare that the relationship between the petitioners and respondent was that of tenant and landlord---In the presence of such a robust and convincing documentary evidence, not only the findings of the Rent Controller but also the Appellate Court regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant were fully justified---Conduct of the petitioners was sufficient to disentitle them from any relief, they had nothing in their hands to establish themselves as the owner of the property, and without any justification denying the relationship of landlord and tenant---Status of petitioners as a tenant was established and they tried to malign the title of the respondent over the property in question in which they could not succeed up to the Supreme Court---Conduct of petitioners demanded that they were liable to the eviction being an improper tenant---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.