2012 CLC 809 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Full text

IBRAR HUSSAIN VS ABDUL KARIM Ejectment Proceedings--TERM , West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959--13 , West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959--2 , Ss. 2 & 13---Ejectment proceedings---Appellant alleging husband and wife to be his tenants, sought their eviction from first floor of demised premises---Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by wife claiming to be owner of land underneath demised premises purchased and built with her finances by husband, who sold the same to appellant later on---Proof---Evidence on record showed that husband had left suit premises, while wife was still in its possession prior to its sale by husband to appellant---Husband had never appeared in court to rebut sale of suit premises to appellant and contest ejectment proceedings---Appellant in addition to ownership had to prove his status of landlord and wife and husband to be his tenants in suit premises---As per definitions of "landlord" and "tenant" contained in S.2 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, entitlement of a person to receive rent of a premises would be deciding factor about his status of being a landlord or otherwise---Right of tenancy being an heritable asset would devolve on wife and children of a tenant only in case of his death, but not during his life time---Only a person liable to pay rent would become a tenant and his mere physical possession would be immaterial as premises could be occupied by a person as licensee or trespasser---Appellant as per his own assertion derived status of landlord after purchase of suit premises from husband, but wife had ipso facto not become tenant of subsequent owner/petitioner as she was claiming to be in its possession in her own right of ownership---Appellant had failed to discharge burden to prove the wife to be his tenant by leading evidence regarding any rent agreed between them or its payment to him or its demand by him and refusal by her or service of any notice upon her demanding its payment---None of appellant's witnesses had witnessed any payment of rent to him by wife or her refusal to pay rent---Wife had filed suit for declaration of her title and cancellation of sale mutation effected in favour of appellant by husband---Appellant must have first got his title declared from a competent court, and then might have filed ejectment petition against wife---Ejectment petition was dismissed in circumstances.