1989 PLP 1188 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a landlords' side against a finding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Petitioners' civil revision arising out of their civil suit for recovery of rent and their writ petition against the rejection of their eviction application, having been dismissed by the High Court, they have now sought leave to appeal The controversy now left to be resolved, which would determine the fate of both these petitions, revolves around the question whether the petitioners are owners of the property in dispute. It is only when this question is answered in their favour that, m the circumstances of this case, they would be entitled to recover the rent from the respondents' side; and thus only, the relationship of landlord and tenant would be deemed to have been established in this case. The Civil Court, after examination of the evidence led from both the sides, came to the conclusion that the petitioners' side did succeed in establishing the disputed title. However, the respondents' appeals; one against the order of ejectment and the other against the decree, were allowed. It was held that the petitioners had failed to establish their title. The petitioners then challenged the appellate order, regarding application for eviction which stood dismissed by the appellate order, by filing a writ petition in the High Court. They also filed a civil revision challenging the appellate judgment and decree in so far as the question of title is concerned. Both having been dismissed on merits, the learned counsel has pressed these petitions both on merits as also on technical grounds. With regard to merits, he had nothing to urge except that there was misreading of evidence regarding title. In respect of the so‑called legal plea, learned counsel contended that even if the petitioners' plea regarding title had been rejected, 'the application for eviction and suit for recovery of rent could succeed on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant, nevertheless, stood established because of the execution of a rent note between the parties. In so far as the question of merits and appreciation of evidence by the learned Courts below is concerned, we have not been able to find any infirmity; legal or otherwise, in the impugned judgment. Regarding the legal ground also it has to be observed; firstly, that in the circumstances of this case, as already remarked, unless the petitioners are able to establish their title, they would not have any right to recover the rent. That being so, no relationship of landlord and tenant would be deemed ever to have existed between the parties. Hence the petitioners would neither be entitled to recover rent nor seek eviction of the so called tenants. This is not all. Secondly, it has also been found that the so‑called rent note relied upon from the petitioners' side did not relate to the property in dispute. That being so, this ground also fails. Leave to appeal accordingly, is refused. M.BA./A‑473/S Leave refused.