1999 PLP 3211 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Appellant Versus GHULAM MOHI-UD-DIN — Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 3211 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Appellant Versus GHULAM MOHI-UD-DIN — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 3211 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 3211 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 3211 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Appellant Versus GHULAM MOHI-UD-DIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 2(c)(i), 13 & 15
Relationship of landlord and tenant
Identity of premises in dispute
Needing determination for decision of ejectment petition
Respondent tenant against whom ejectment petition was filed by petitioner landlord, had alleged that he was not tenant of petitioner but was tenant of late father of petitioner
Premises in question consisted of two shops, one was transferred to petitioner and other to his late brother and there was dispute about identity of premises transferred to two brothers, but petitioner did not append with his ejectment petition any site plan of premises in dispute
Identity of premises having not been established clearly by any of the parties, ejectment order passed in favour of petitioner landlord could not be executed without clear identification of premises in dispute and it could only be done by production of site plan of premises
Pending ejectment petition. Court ordered to append site plan so that ejectment petition could be decided accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments. The applicants, if genuinely felt, should have moved the applications before the Rent Controller or atleast before the Appellate Authority. The application is clearly mala fide and misconceived, therefore, dismissed. C. M. No. 431-C of 1997.
4. This is an application for production of copy of the judgment of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jhelum, dated 22-3-1995. It is argued that to the judgment the Deputy Settlement Commissioner it has been explained that the shop was transferred to Soofi Muhammad Din while one room and open plot of the same property was transferred to the respondent, who was brother of the said Muhammad Din, therefore, this document is necessary for the decision of the preliminary issue of relationship.
5. On the other hand, it is argued that the document is irrelevant for the purpose of controversy. This is to be seen in the light of pleading of the parties and evidence on record.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments. The issue was framed as per pleading of the parties and the same has to be proved in accordance with the evidence. None of the parties can be allowed to prove case other than set up in its pleadings. The respondent has clearly pleaded in the ejectment petition that he left out the shop to the appellant, therefore, the controversy that who is owner is irrelevant.
7. This application is dismissed. MAIN CASE
8. The respondent filed an ejectment petition from a shop situated in Jhelum. The appellant contested the same and pleaded that he is tenant of late brother of the respondent. The Trial Court framed issue as to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The respondent appeared as A. W.1. The appellant in rebuttal examined Mehfooz Begum as R. W.1 and himself appeared as R. W.2. The parties were making contradictory claims, which were to clear from the evidence on record, therefore, the Court examined Wali Dad as C. W. The Rent Controller after hearing the arguments decided the issue in favour of the appellant vide order, dated 6-6-1991. The respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was accepted by the impugned order, dated 6-11-1993. The result was that the ejectment petition was accepted and the appellant was given 30 days to vacate the shop. Now this second appeal.
9. I have heard the argument at some length and gone through the record. It has transpired that the respondent did not append with the ejectment petition any site plan of the property in dispute. The parties have produced a number of documents contradicting each other. The admitted fact is that one shop was transferred to the respondent and the other to his brother Muhammad Din. The dispute all the way is of identity of the properties transferred to two brother. In the absence of any site plan, the ejectment order cannot be executed. The identity has not been established clearly by any of the parties.
10. I do not want to make any comments to the evidence both oral and documentary on record, lest it should prejudice case of the either party. In this view of the matter this appeals is accepted. The impugned order of the Appellate Authority as well as the Rent Controller are set aside. The result is that the ejectment petition would be deemed pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jehlum. The respondent may amend the ejectment petition and submit site plan of the property claimed by him and also produce other documents as deemed necessary. Similarly, the appellant side would also be at liberty to file fresh reply to the ejectment petition and produce relevant documents of all sorts. Thereafter, the parties shall be given opportunity to produce further evidence, if any, and the petition shall be decided afresh in accordance with law.
11. This petition is pending since April, 1986, therefore, the learned Senior Civil Judge is directed to decide the matter expeditiously in any case by 30th of June, 1998. .
12. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-1020/L Order accordingly.