1989 PLP 4710 (MLD)

Ch. Hamid‑ud‑Din for Respondent No.

1. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and

3. Date of hearing: 28th June, 1989. On 29th September, 1986 a petition under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 seeking the eviction of the petitioner from property bearing No. P‑274‑A, Commercial Area, Peoples Colony No. 1, Faisalabad was filed by Muhammad Ashraf respondent No. 1, herein, in which he claimed to be the landlord of the property on account of its purchase from Muhammad Siddique, son of Rehmat Ali, the original owner. The ejectment was sought on the grounds of default in the payment of rent, personal use and damage to the property. In the written statement filed by him, the petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant by stating that he was a tenant under Rehmat Ali and Abdul Rashid and after the death of Rehmat Ali he has been paying rent jointly to other landlord Abdul Rashid and Muhammad Siddique son of Rehmat Ali who had allegedly transferred the property to the respondent without any right or authority. On these pleadings, the learned Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant on which the parties produced their evidence. On 22nd September, 1988, it was found by the Rent Controller that the petitioner was a tenant under respondent No. 1 and while deciding the preliminary issue proceeded to direct the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad on 14‑3‑1989. These two orders have been assailed by the petitioner by filing this constitutional petition.

2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition is that after having decided that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, the Rent Controller should have proceeded to hold further inquiry without which the eviction of the petitioner could not have been ordered. Ch. Hamid‑ud‑din, Darned counsel for respondent No. 1 has, on the other hand contended that in the circumstances of the case there was no need to hold any further inquiry and the Rent Controller was justified in directing the ejectment of the petitioner.

3. There is much force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under Section 13(1) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, a tenant in possession of a building or rented land cannot be evicted there from except in accordance with the provisions of that section. Section 13(2) and (3) enumerates the grounds on which the eviction of the tenant can be ordered. The denial of relationship of landlord and tenant is not one of the grounds so specified in this provision. The question as to whether the tenant by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant forfeits his tenancy stands conclusively determined in negative by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Siddique and 2 others (P L D 1988 S C 731) and Makhan Bano v. Abdul Ghani (P L D 1984 S C 17). In the present case, as already mentioned, the ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent, personal use and damage to the property. However, after deciding the issue of relationship of the landlord and tenant, none of these grounds was adverted to or decided, nor any inquiry held by the Rent Controller. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner had his written reply pleaded that he had been paying/tendering rent in the name of the previous landlords and had acted bona ride in doing so. These aspects of the case should have been examined by the Rent Controller and without doing so no order of ejectment could be passed. In view of what has been stated above, this constitutional petition is accepted, the orders of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller as also the Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the case is remanded to the Rent Controller for its decision afresh by or before 30th September, 1989 in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before him on 17th of July, 1989. No order as to costs. H.B.T./A‑796/L Petition accepted.