1990 PLP 871 (SCMR)

Samad Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Illahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th October, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant in an Urban Rent Restriction matter; against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Writ Petition. The High Court in a detailed judgment affirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller (as upheld by the appeal Court) directing the eviction of the petitioner on ground of personal requirement of the son of respondent No.3/landlord. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner being a tenant for nearly 40 years, the respondent was inducted as co‑owner of the property in question to the extent of 1/4th share only during the settlement operations after 1960. One of the other co‑owners is a brother of the respondent and, it is stated, he had a share as local owner in this property even before the settlement operations. According to him the respondent /landlord despite having become co -owner in the property did not assert his right as landlord for more than a decade, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. When asked whether he fell within the definition of a "landlord" under the special law, the learned counsel without disputing this, reiterated his argument that the landlord should have by his overt act asserted his status as such. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument, that the landlord did not make any such so‑called assertion of his right, this would not neutralise the effect of his being the `landlord' in accordance with the definition of this term as contained in the Rent Restriction Law. Learned counsel has also contended that in an earlier round the case was remanded to the Rent Controller who without deciding the question of relationship of landlord and tenant afresh, ordered eviction. Same point was raised before the High Court and it was repelled by the observation that this: question stood concluded by the orders passed in the earlier round of litigation by the appeal Court, when remanding the case, The observation by the High Court in the earlier round that the petitioner would be at liberty to take all the "relevant" objections before the trial Court was interpreted to mean that the question of relationship of landlord and tenant stood concluded, the petitioner was at liberty to take all other relevant objections. After hearing the learned counsel we agree with the High Court that in the context of the proceedings in the earlier round of litigation the question of relationship of landlord and tenant stood concluded and it could not have been re‑opened before the Rent Controller after the remand. The concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below have also been challenged by the learned counsel but without any success as they do not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise. This petition fails, leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. AA./D‑61/S Leave refused.