1980 PLP 785 (SCMR)

Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing ; 19th March, 1986. DORAH PATEL, J.-The petitioner is the tenant of two shops in Lyallpur, for which he had paid rent for many years to the respondents, who are brothers. However, be suddenly stopped paying rent, therefore, in 1971, the respondents filed an eviction application against him on the ground of default in the payment of rent and on another ground which is not relevant. The petitioner contested his eviction and the eviction application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Lyallpur, by his order dated 20th November, 1972. Therefore, the respondents challenged this order in an appeal in the District Court, Lyallpur, which was allowed by an Additional District Judge on 20th November, 1974. As his eviction was ordered by the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioner challeng ed the judgment passed against him in a second appeal in the Labor High Court, which was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge on 27th November 1974. Hence this petition for leave. Learned counsel admitted that the petitioner had been in heavy arrears of rent at the date of the eviction application, but he drew our attention to the fact that the petitioner had disputed the title of the respondents and the Rent Controller had decided the issue of title against the respondents. Therefore, learned counsel invited us to restore the view of the trial Court on the ground that the Rent Controller had the advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses who had appeared before him. But the Additional District Judge was entitled as the first appellate Court to review questions of fact and as the second appellate Court, namely, the High Court agreed with the view of the learned Additional District Judge, learned counsel submitted that both the appellate Courts had misread the evidence. Now, in dismissing the eviction application of the respondents, the Rent Controller had relied on the fact that none of the respondents had appeared to give evidence in support of their claim that they were the owners of the shops leased to the petitioner. The failure of the respon dents to give evidence is certainly a circumstance which went against their claim that they were the owners of the shops in dispute. But the petitioner cannot put his case higher than that. And, on the other hand, he has admitted that he had paid rent for many years to the respondents. Therefore, the burden was heavily on him to prove that the respondents were not owners of the shops demised to him. Now, his case according to Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, was that the shops had been leased to him by one Shaukat (whose title the petitioner did not dispute) and that the respondents were the brothers of the said Shaukat therefore, on the death of the said Shaukat, he had paid rent to the respondents on the assump tion that the respondents were the sole legal heirs of his landlord, Shaukat deceased. But, as they had not proved their claim to be the sole legal heirs of Shaukat, he had stopped paying rent. Now, although the respondents did not produce evidence, they examined several witnesses, who gave evidence that the respondents were the owners of the shop and this evidence had to be assessed in the light of the petitioner's admission. that he had paid rent for several years to the respondents. Additionally, there was another circumstance on which the learned Single Judge rightly placed great stress. This was that although the petitioner suddenly decided to dispute the claim of the respondents that they were the sole legal heirs of Shaukat, he was not able to specify who the real legal heirs of Shaukat deceased were, nor apparently was it his case that any one other than the respondents had demanded rent from him. In these circumstances, we would only observe that there is evidence in support of the concurrent findings of the appellate Courts in favour of the respondents and learned counsel has not been able to show us any error of law in these concurrent findings. And as the petitioner cannot get round his default in the payment of rent, it is not a fit case for the grant of special leave. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.