1989 PLP 3541 (MLD)

"(1) Whether there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and the opponent? (2) Whether in the circumstances of the present case the application of the applicant is filed under the proper provision of law? If not, its effect? (3) Whether the application as framed is maintainable under the law? (4) Whether the application is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provision of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972? Before the Rent Controller Nazir Ahmed, landlord, and appellant Ghulam Sarwar Malik were examined. I have heard Mr. Attaullah Khan, Advocate, appearing for the appellant. It is contended by the learned counsel that the appellant is owner of the property by virtue of a contract, therefore, there exists no relationship as such the rent was not paid to the respondent Nazir Ahmed. It is argued that rent application is not maintainable. The Rent Controller rightly framed preliminary issues about the relationship between the parties. Respondent Nazir Ahmed m his evidence stated that he inherited the Property after the death of his father Mian Muhammad. He also got letter of Administration from the District and Sessions Judge in this respect. He in support produced extract (Ex.2) from the Registrar of the Municipal Committee, Rawalpindi, about the death of his father showing that Mian Muhammad died on 4-2-1971. He has also produced a copy of letter of Administration issued by the District Judge, Karachi on 11th May, 1973. He also produced letter from the Honorary Secretary P.E.C. H.S.(Ex. 4) by which the plot was transferred to legal heirs of the deceased. In support Bank's statements (Ex. 5) have also been produced. Appellant Ghulam Sarwar claims the title over the Property on the basis of one receipt (Ex. 7). The receipt alleged to have been executed by Nazir Ahmed (Exh. 7) has been denied by him. At that time i.e. 13-2-1970 his father was alive. He has stated that appellant used to pay rent by way of cross cheques, which were deposited in the account. The Rent Controller has discussed the evidence of both in detail. Mr. Attaullah Khan has admitted that the disputed plot was taken by the appellant on rent from late Mian Muhammad, father of Nazir Ahmed, as a tenant, but subsequently he purchased the same from Nazir Ahmed and paid Rs. 2,000 as an advance. The reliance has been placed upon receipt (Ex. 7) executed on 13-2-1970 by Nazir Ahmed when Mian Muhammad, owner of the Property, was alive, who died on 4-2-1971 and at that time Nazir Ahmed had no title over the Property. It has been proved from the documents that Nazir Ahmed along with other heirs became the owner by way of inheritance after the death of Mian Muhammad and plot was transferred by the Society on 2-12-1974 by a letter (Exh: 4)'. The letter of Administration was granted to Nazir Ahmed by the District Judge in the year 1973. It is also on the record that there were other heirs of Mian Muhammad. The rent receipt executed by Nazi Ahmed is neither registered nor attested by any Magistrate. I would not like to enter into this controversy, as it is a matter to be decided by the Civil Court if such plea is taken about the evidentiary value of this receipt. The upshot of the above discussion is that there exists relationship between Nazir Ahmed and the appellant. The Rent Controller has rightly decided this preliminary issue by a detailed judgment. It is an admitted position that appellant has failed to pay or tender the rent. I have no any reason to interfere with this impugned order which has been passed on the facts and evidence ands the appeal is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed. H.B.T./G-111/K