1995 PLP 1260 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 13(c)(i)‑‑‑Landlord and tenant, relationship of‑‑‑Petitioner in his Constitutional petition had challenged orders of Courts below in which she was held tenant under respondents‑‑‑Alleged exchange deed arrived at between respondents in respect of premises in question in 1982, did not mention that petitioner was in possession of premises as tenant, whereas petitioner had claimed that she was in possession of premises since 1976 and had even got building site plan sanctioned‑‑‑Documents filed by petitioner further indicated that she was on serious litigation with respondents and her suit against respondents on plea of adverse possession had been dealt with by High Court in revision and same was remanded‑‑‑No manner of doubt was left that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and rather serious question of. title was involved‑‑‑Assumption of jurisdiction by Rent Controller and Appellate Court was uncalled for in circumstances. Syed Najamul Hassan Kazmi for Petitioner. Rasheed Murtaza Oureshi for Respondent No. 1 Date of hearing: 5th July, 1994. Malik Farzand Ali respondent filed an ejectment petition against Mst. Rehmat Bibi with respect to a house situated in Khasra No. 3280 opposite Tehsil Head‑Quarter Hospital, Chunian. The same was contested by Mst. Rehmat Bibi, the writ petition herein, on the plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Issue in this regard was settled and answered in favour of Malik Farzand Ali respondent by the Civil Judge, Chunian, acting as Rent Controller, vide his order dated 27‑4‑1985. Her appeal against the same failed in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, who delivered the judgment on 23‑7‑1985. The vires of the same have been challenged by her in the present writ petition. It was admitted on 30‑6‑1987 to consider the effect of filing/pendency of suit for adverse possession by Mst. Rehmat Bibi against Malik Farzand Ali and others.

2. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. In the reply filed by Mst. Rehmat Bibi, she had clearly denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and asserted her own title. The ejectment petition was filed on 4‑3‑1982 and she filed her written reply on 5‑6‑1982. Farzand Ali had served her a notice on 1‑2‑1982 i.e. before the filing of the ejectment petition. It is Annexure‑I. According to it, she was tenant under Muhammad Anwar, the previous owner at a monthly rent of Rs. 150 he (Frazand) had obtained the house from Anwar on 2‑4‑1981, she had paid him rent for the month of April and thereafter refused to pay any rent. The exchange deed between Anwar and Malik Farzand Ali is Annexure‑J. There is no mention in it that Mst. Rehamat Bibi was in possession of 9 Marlas house given to Malik Farzand Ali. With the writ petition she has filed documents indicating that she was in possession of the premises since 1976 and had even got site plan sanctioned. Malik Farzand Ali respondent had moved for the cancellation of her site plan. The documents filed by her further indicated that she was on serious litigation with Malik Farzand Ali and his predecessor Anwar. Her suit against Malik Farzand Ali, Anwar and others on the plea of adverse possession has today been dealt with by this Court in Civil Revision No. 1516 of 1989 and the same has been remanded. In view of the documents filed in the present writ petition and the discussion made and conclusion reached in the civil revision, no manner of doubt is left, that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and rather serious question of title was/is involved and so the assumption of jurisdiction by the Rent Controller and the learned Additional. District Judge was uncalled for.

3. The upshot is that the impugned orders of the learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge being without jurisdiction, are hereby declared to be void, ineffective against the rights of the writ petitioner and the writ petition is allowed with costs. H.B.T./R‑171?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition allowed.