1990 PLP 954 (SCMR)

Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Zakiuddin Paul, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th January, 1990. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 15‑5‑1989, whereby his Writ Petition No. 550/89/BWP. was dismissed in limine. Muhammad Sadiq respondent No. 3 filed an ejectment application on _ 19‑3‑1985 against the petitioner from a shop which is an evacuee property in Tehsil Bazar Ahmadpur East, before the learned Rent Controller. This application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the respondents are not owners and the petitioner is entitled to acquire proprietary rights of the shop in dispute. He also totally denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned trial Judge after recording the evidence on the preliminary issue i.e. "Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties" decided the same in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and their ejectment application against the petitioner was allowed on 17‑12‑1985. Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur on 6‑4‑1989 and his writ petition was also dismissed by the High Court on 15‑5‑1989. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The documentary evidence proved the title of the respondent No. 3 that he is a purchaser through a registered deed from Sadiq and Imam Bakhsh sons of An Wadda for consideration of Rs.45,

000. Sadiq and Imam Bakhsh obtained the title of the disputed property through a judgment and decree of the Court Exs. P‑8 and P‑

9. Muhammad Sadiq after purchase got the sanctioned site plan approved through the municipality and thereafter constructed the shop in dispute while on the other side the petitioner who claims to be the owner and denied the ownership of the respondents produced oral evidence and led no documentary evidence to show that he is the owner in possession of the shop in dispute. As according to the petitioner his possession over the disputed shop is as it being an evacuee property and states that his tenancy has not been settled so far. He admitted that neither he paid any rent to the Settlement Department nor paid property tax or security for the electric connection. He also failed to prove the sanction and approval obtained for the construction of the shop from the municipality. From the above circumstances, the relationship of landlord and tenant is proved and the same being a question of fact which the learned Courts below, have concurrently decided in favour of the respondents has rightly not been interfered with by the learned High Court in exercising its constitutional jurisdiction. The result is that there is no merit in this ‑ petition which is accordingly dismissed. A.A./M‑1223/S Petition dismissed.