2011 PLD 615 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

Syed MUMTAZ HUSSAIN VS Mst. NAZIMA NAQVI 2007 MLD 732, 2009 CLC 34, 2009 YLR 1736, 2009 YLR 2379, 2010 SCMR 446, Constitutional petition--TERM , Ejectment of Tenant--TERM , West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959--13 , West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959--2 , Ss. 2(c) & 13---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Ejectment of tenant---Relationship of landlord and tenant-Parties were brother and sister inter se and disputed premises was owned by their deceased father---Father of parties in his life time rented out the premises---Petitioner was attorney of his father and had been receiving rent from the tenant on behalf of his father---Respondent (sister) claimed that their father gifted the premises to her thus she had become the owner---Prior to receipt of any notice of change of ownership, the tenant de-hired the premises and handed over the possession to petitioner---Respondent filed ejectment application against her brother (petitioner) and tenant on the ground of wilful default---Rent Controller allowed ejectment application and passed eviction order, which was maintained by Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Petitioner could never be treated as a tenant in the house in question as he was receiving rent from the tenant on behalf of his father and he fell within the definition of "landlord" as provided in S.2(c) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959--Petitioner, being a family member of the deceased owner, was in occupation of the demised premises, as such could 'not be treated as a tenant in the house---No evidence was available on record that either the tenant or petitioner paid any rent to respondent, after termination of lease agreement, as such relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties---Necessary ingredients of execution of gift in favour of respondent lady were not completed as delivery of possession of the house had not taken place--Eviction orders passed by both the Courts below suffered from misreading and non-reading of material evidence available on record and judgments recorded by both the Courts below were not sustainable in the eyes of law---High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, declared eviction orders as illegal and of no legal consequences and the same were set aside---Petition was allowed accordingly.