1994 PLP 1920 (MLD)

This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, arises out of an application under section 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, instituted by the petitioners against Muhammad Akram, respondent No.3, Jamal Din, predecessor of respondent Nos.3 to 7 and also Muhammad Igbal, seeking their eviction from a house situated in Khasra No.3001 in Village Kahna, Lahore.

2. In that application, the petitioner claiming ownership of the house in question stated that it was rented out by them to Muhammad Iqbal in 1951, who later on, shifted to Kasur after inducting his father, Jamal Din, and his younger brother, Muhammad Akram, into possession of the house in question. It was asserted that the respondents have been paying rent to the petitioners till January, 1977, whereafter no payment was made. The ejectment of the respondents was sought on the grounds of personal needs, default in payment 0f rent and use of the house in question for the purpose other than for which it was rented out.

3. In the written statement filed by the respondents, they denied that the petitioners were owners of the house in question. They claimed that the land underneath the property belongs to them, over which they had raised construction at their own cost and expense. The maintainability of this petition was also objected to on the ground that a serious question of title was involved in the dispute.

4. The petitioners did not produce any oral evidence in support of their case and sufficed by tendering certain documents in evidence. On the other hand, the respondent examined six witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.

5. On 5-7-1988, the Rent Controller proceeded to dismiss the ejectment petition filed by the petitioners holding that they have failed to establish that the respondents were their tenants in respect of the house in question. He was of the opinion that as the title of the petitioners to the property was doubtful and they should, in the first instance, establish it before the civil Court.

6. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners went in appeal before the District Court, which, however, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 19-2-1991, who affirmed the view taken by the Rent Controller that on account of conflicting claims between the parties as to the ownership, the matter should best be left to be decided by the civil Courts.

7. Syed Samar Hussain, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this petition, has contended that it stands established on the record that the house in question was rented out by the petitioners to Muhammad Iqbal, who later on inducted his father and his younger brother into possession of the house' in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the findings to the contrary recorded by the Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge are not sustainable. Syed Najam-ul-Hassan Kazmi, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, defended the impugned orders and further argued that there was nothing on the record to establish tenancy between the petitioners and the respondents.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record, I am of the view that this petition has no force.

9. Admittedly, no oral evidence was produced by the petitioners nor is there any document of undoubted authenticity to show that the petitioners were the owners of the land underneath the property and have raised construction themselves. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied used the entries in the register Haqdaran in order to show that the petitioners were recorded as owners of the house question. He is, however, unable to point out any evidence to show that these entries relate to the house in question. Nothing has been produced on the record by the petitioners to substantiate their assertion that the respondents have been paying rent of the house in question to them. The entire evidence was thoroughly appraised by the learned Additional District Judge as also the Rent Controller, who concurrently found that the petitioners had failed to prove that they were either owners of the house in dispute. In that view of the matter, the Courts below were justified in directing the petitioners to establish their title to the house in question in the civil Courts. For the reasons above, this petition is found without any force and is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./B-67/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.