2004 PLP 711 (SCMR)
FAKHAR-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus Mst. MANSAB BIBI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 711 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | FAKHAR-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus Mst. MANSAB BIBI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 711 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 711 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 711 (SCMR) (FAKHAR-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus Mst. MANSAB BIBI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Chaudhry Inayat Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 26-4-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Second Appeal from Order No.23 of 2001).
S. 13
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 84
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Relationship of landlord and tenant-- Proof
Tenant denied such relationship and alleged rent deed to be a forged document
Rent Controller allowed ejectment petition, which judgment was upheld by First and Second Appellate Courts
Validity-- Rent deed had been duly proved by producing its scribe and marginal witnesses, whose statements were found to be unimpeachable, coherent and confidence-inspiring-- Landlord had discharged onus of issue regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties
Tenant had not made any request before Rent Controller for comparison of his thumb-impression by an expert
Findings of fact recorded by High .Court did not suffer from any legal infirmity-- Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused to grant leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
The petitioner in both the petitions seeks leave to appeal against a single judgment dated 26-4-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Second Appeal from Orders Nos.23 and 24 of 2001.
2. The respondent in each case filed separate application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 being owner/landlord of the workshop in dispute for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent and causing damage to the same. The Rent Controller framed as many as four issues. The application of the respondent in each case was allowed by the Rent Controller by order dated 2-3-2000. The separate appeals of the petitioner were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Multan by order dated 12-10-2001. The petitioner filed Second Appeal from Orders Nos.23 and 24 of 2001 before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench which were dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 26-4-2002. Hence these petitions for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the property in dispute was evacuee which was occupied by the petitioner immediately after the partition of the Sub-Continent. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not-established from the evidence. The Rent Controller was required to refer the respondent in each case to get the determination of the title over the disputed property by the Civil Court. The tenancy agreement dated 1-2-1989 was a forged and fabricated document which had not been executed by the petitioner in favour of each respondent.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. All the forums below recorded concurrent findings of fact that the respondent in each case had discharged the onus of pivotal Issue No.3.l regarding the relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the, parties. The rent deed dated 10-2-1989 (Exh.A/1) had been duly proved by producing its scribe and marginal witnesses whose statements were found to be unimpeachable, coherent and confidence-inspiring. The learned counsel failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence The High Court justifiably took the view that the petitioner had not made any request before the Rent Controller for comparison of the thumb-impression of the petitioner by an expert. The findings of fact recorded by the Lahore High Court do not suffer from any infirmity. These are not fit cases for grant of leave to appeal.
5. These petitions have no merit and the same are dismissed accordingly. S.A.K./F-84/S Leave refused.