2012 CLC 51 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

Sheikh MUHAMMAD KHALID VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQ ANWAR 1983 SCMR 1064, 1992 SCMR 1352, 1993 CLC 1074, 1994 SCMR 572, 1997 SCMR 315, PLD 1985 SC 1, Ejectment petition--term , West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959--13 , West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959--15 , Ss. 13(6) & 15(6)---Ejectment petition---Default in payment of rent, ground of---Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant---Construction of commercial market by landlord on land measuring eleven (11) Marlas transferred to him by Settlement Department after getting approval for its building plan from Municipal Corporation---Written tenancy of a shop on ground floor in such market made by landlord in favour of tenant---Tenant's plea that he paid rent to landlord for more than four years, whereafter Supreme Court declared land underneath suit shop to be non-evacuee and a lady was declared its owner, who started to receive its rent from him after entering into a rent agreement---Landlord's pleas were that tenant had obtained possession of shop from him as his tenant; that said lady had no interest in the land under suit shop and tenant could not attorn her as his landlady; that he was not party before Supreme Court, thus, its judgment in favour of such lady was not binding on him and that his review petition against such judgment was pending before the Supreme Court---Order of Rent Controller directing tenant to deposit arrears and future rent in Government Treasury while restraining landlord to withdraw the same---Striking off defence of tenant and passing of ejectment order by Rent Controller for his failure to comply with such rent deposit order---Dismissal of tenant's appeal by Appellate Authority---Validity---Tenant claimed to have purchased subsequently land under shop from such lady through registered deed---According to judgment of Supreme Court, land transferred to such lady was 6 Kanals, 13 Marlas and 6 sq. ft.---Question as to whether land under the shop was part of the land of such lady or not, was yet to be determined---Rent deposit order in question was shelter for tenant as Rent Controller had framed issues and deferred question of existence or non-existence of tenancy till recording of evidence---Compliance of such rent deposit order was mandatory under law---Rent Controller through such rent order had fully protected rights of tenant as he had to deposit rent and in case he succeeded after recording of evidence to prove non-existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, then rent so deposited would be refundable to him---Tenant had failed to comply with such rent deposit order and failed to avail opportunity allowed to him by Rent Controller---Landlord had constructed market on suit-land---Superstructure of suit shop at time of taking its possession by tenant undisputedly belonged to landlord---No suit for partition had been filed by landlord or such lady---In case tenant wanted to claim ownership of superstructure of shop on basis of sale-deed, then he had to first vacate shop and restore its possession to landlord and if he succeeded to prove himself to be its owner, then landlord would be bound to restore its possession to him---Courts below had rightly passed eviction order against the tenant---High Court dismissed second appeal while allowing one month's time to tenant to vacate shop.