2007 PLP 268 (MLD)

JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.

The appellant-landlord impugns the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated 22-7-2006, whereby the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent A Controller on 28-2-2005 was set aside and the appellant's petition seeking ejectment of the respondent from the disputed property was dismissed.

2. The respondent-tenant had taken up the plea that no relation-ship of landlord and tenant existed between the appellant and himself. According to him, he had purchased the property from the appellant against an agreed consideration of Rs.3,65,000 out of which he had paid a total sum of Rs. 3,50,000 in two tranches and only a balance of Rs.15,000 remained outstanding which, according to him, the appellant was refusing to receive. The respondent did not produce any receipts for the amounts allegedly paid by him to the appellant.

3. Considering the above, the learned Rent Controller held that the plea set up by the respondent was false and that, in fact, he was a tenant of the appellant. The learned Appellate Court, however, has reversed this finding. The sole reason, which has prevailed with the learned appellate Court, is that the appellant, who appeared as AW-2, and his brother, who appeared as AW-1, had been inconsistent in their testimony to the extent that AW-1 had stated that the respondent had not paid rent to the appellant in his presence.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the above inconsistency was not in itself sufficient for the purpose of non-suiting the appellant because the respondent had not been able to justify his possession of the suit property in the absence of any receipts for the sale consideration allegedly paid by him to the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent was not in a position to controvert the above submissions. There is no explanation as to why a substantial sum of money was paid by the respondent as alleged by him, without obtaining any receipt from the appellant. This itself is a material circumstance which belies the plea set up by the respondent by way of defence to the ejectment petition. One thing, however, which is significant, is that the respondent himself has acknowledged the title of the appellant and has also admitted that he was inducted into the property B by the appellant albeit under a verbal agreement. These material circumstances unfortunately have been brushed aside by the learned Appellate Court which, as noted above, has proceeded on the premises noted in paragraph 3 above.

6. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find the impugned appellate order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. As a result, the ejectment order, dated 28-2-2005 passed by the learned Rent Controller is affirmed. H.B.T./M-722/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.