1994 PLP 1241 (MLD)

This judgment shall dispose of W.Ps. Nos.461, 462, 463 and 464 of 1991 which arise out of applications filed by the petitioner under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the respondents from the respective portions in their possession out of the property No.SE-II-20-S-28, Ram Gali, Lahore.

2. The respondents resisted these applications by pleading that they are in occupation of property No.SE-9-R-51, Brandreth Road, Lahore owned by late Mian Meraj Din and not of the Property No.SE-II-20-S-28, Ram Gali.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issue on which the parties led evidence which comprises both of statements of witnesses and a number of documents: (i) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?

4. On 30-3-1987, the ejectment petition was accepted by the Rent Controller who held that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties stood proved on the record and the respondents were in occupation of the property owned by the petitioner and not late Mian Meraj Din.

5. Feeling aggrieved, respondents filed appeals which were heard by the Additional District Judge who on 2-7-1989 came to the conclusion that as there were complicated questions as to the title of the property and as such, parties, should first get their title determined from Civil Court. On this finding, the appeals were accepted and the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Hence these petitions.

6. Before petitions could be argued on merits, Sh. Abdul Aziz, learned counsel for respondents has raised a preliminary objection that these petitions badly suffer from laches inasmuch as the impugned judgment was delivered by the Additional District Judge on 2-7-1989 and the certified copies were made available to the petitioner on 2-8-1989; but these petitions were filed on 6th January, 1991 i.e. about one year and five months thereafter.

7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon. Haji Ghulam Hussain v. Hamid Hassan Khan and another PLD 1969 Lah. 147 to submit that delay by itself is not a ground for dismissal of a Constitutional petition.

8. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is well taken. There is no explanation whatsoever available on the record for the inordinate delay in filing these Constitutional petitions which were instituted after one year and 5 months. Learned counsel has tried to explain that it was on account of illness of Mr. M. M. Saeed that these petitions could not be filed earlier. But no such explanation is forthcoming in these petitions which were filed by Mr. M. M. Saeed Beg himself.

9. There may not be any cavil that in certain cases delay in filing a Constitutional petition may not be fatal but it depends upon the facts of each case. The exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction being discretionary with the Court, generally speaking, a petitioner must approach the Court within a reasonable period of time.

10. Even otherwise, there is hardly any ground for interference made out on merits. The real question in controversy between the parties is regarding the demarcation of the two properties. The petitioner himself had applied to the Deputy Administrator (Residual Property) for demarcation who did not carry it out, observing that if any of the parties had encroached upon the property of the other, the matter should be raised before appropriate forum.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that according to the order of the Deputy Administrator, the properties have been transferred on the basis of record maintained by Lahore Municipal Corporation which shows that only one shop and a residential portion were transferred to Meraj Din and as such it could not be said that the shops in occupation of the respondents belonged to him. This argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. .Although Deputy Administrator has mentioned that the properties were transferred on the basis of the record of Lahore Municipal Corporation but there is nothing in this order .which prevents the respondents from making reference to the other record to show that the shops in their occupation were not a part of the property transferred to the petitioner. Moreover, it is common ground between the parties that both the properties have since been reconstructed.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents, 'has however, submitted that the reconstruction was made on a different property and not on the property in 8 dispute. This and other related questions of facts cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.

13. It is also to be noticed that the Additional District Judge has not rendered any final opinion on merits but left the parties to get the matter determined by the Civil Court. In these circumstances, it would not be just and proper to interfere with the order of the Additional District Judge at such a belated stage. The Additional District Judge was correct in referring the parties to Civil Court for decision on the question of title. For the reasons aforesaid, these petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./Z-106/L Petitions dismissed.