2009 CLC 114 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

AMJAD MEHMOOD KHOKHAR VS FARASAT HUSSAIN 1984 SCMR 1065, 1984 SCMR 741, 1986 CLC 591, 1990 CLC 908, 2004 CLC 862, 2005 YLR 2784, PLD 1978 Kar. 182, Agreement to Sell--TERM , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Determination--TERM , Ejectment of Tenant--TERM , West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959--13 , S. 13(6)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Ejectment of tenant---Striking off defence---Relation of landlord and tenant---Determination---Agreement to sell---Effect--Tenant denied relation of landlord and tenant on the ground of oral agreement to sell with previous owner of premises---Rent Controller passed tentative rent order but tenant failed to deposit the same within due time thus defence of tenant was struck off and eviction order was passed which order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Agreement to sell even if written could not create any right or title in favour of purchaser---Landlord purchased the premises against registered sale deed which held the field and was a better title as compared to tenant---Filing of civil suit challenging validity of sale deed executed in favour of landlord did not vitiate the title unless the same was finally decided---Tenant had also filed a suit for specific performance of oral agreement and if, at end of the day, tenant would succeed, he could ask for possession of rented premises in accordance with law---Tenant although denied relationship of landlord and tenant but could not place any material on record in support of his contention and rather elected to disobey order passed under S.13 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, by Rent Controller---Tenant could have avoided his eviction from demised property by complying with order passed under S.13(6) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, by Rent Controller and could contest ejectment petition on merits---High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Art.199 of .the Constitution, declined to interfere with orders passed by the courts below---Petition was dismissed in circumstances.