1982 PLP 1770 (CLC)

Zia Mahmood Mirza for Appellants. Khan Younas Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing : 19th December, 1981. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge. Lahore, dated the 13th May, 1978, dismissing the appel lants' appeal against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Lahore, dated the 18th January, 1977, whereby the appellants' application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for securing eviction of the respondent from the house in dispute was dismissed.

2. The appellants claim themselves to be the owners of the house in question. They allege that they leased it out to Amanat Ali, respondent, on a monthly rent of Rs. 15.00. No lease deed was executed. According to the appellants the respondent paid rent till December, 1968, and there after defaulted. On the 22nd January, 1971, they filed application seeking his ejectment on the grounds that he had not paid rent from January, 1969, onwards and that he had constructed a room without their consent and permission. The respondent asserted his own ownership over the property in dispute and denied being a tenant under the appellants.

4. The learned Rent Controller held that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and, therefore, dismissed the appel lants' application. In appeal his order was confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have come up in further appeal to this Court.

5. The only grievance of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the learned Rent Controller as ‑also the learned Additional District Judge had not given due consideration to the copies of the entries of the Excise and Taxation Department assessment register.‑relating to the period prior to the filing of the application and consequently incorrectly decided the point in issue. In the documents. Exits. P/2 to P/6, no doubt the appellants are described to be owners and the respondent's name entered in the column reserved for occupier. As is customary with the Excise and Taxation Department nature of occupation is given as `lease' with Rs. 30.00 as monthly rent to assess the annual gross rental value at Rs. 360.00. Entries to the Department's register‑are made without notice the parties concerned and no presumption of absolute genuineness can be raised in respect thereof. It may be interesting to note that the demand notices touching payment of various tax bills and the receipts of such payments, Exhs. R/3 to R/7, in respect of the house in dispute for the period antecedent to the filing of the ejectment application, do not mention the appellants as owners rather they recite the respondent as the person responsible for paying the taxes and actually it was he who paid the taxes. In these circumstances Exhs. P/2 to P/6 cannot be taken to be proof of the fact that the respondent was a tenant of the property to dispute under the appellants. It is hard to displace the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the District Judge. The appeal is consequently dismissed with costs. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.