2018 PLP 100 (CLCN)

ALI BAIG, J.

Through this civil second appeal the appellant has challenged the vires of judgment/ decree dated 30-10-2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, whereby the learned Ist Appellate Court has dismissed the civil first appeal of the appellant by up-holding the judgment/decree of the learned senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller Gilgit.

2. Succinctly, facts giving rise to the instant civil second appeal are that the present respondent No.1 filed a Rent Petition under section 13 of Gilgit Baltistan Rented Premises Act, 2010 for ejection of appellant from the suit shop No.19 owned by the present respondent No.1 situated at Babar Block NLI Market Gilgit claiming therein that he had rented the suit shop to present respondent No.2 namely Shuja-Ullah in the year 1996 through rent agreement and rent agreement was renewed from time to time. In the year 2009 the suit shop was rented out to the respondent No.2 for a period of 3 years i.e. from Ist September 2009 to 1st September 2012 vide rent agreement Exh. P/1. According to aforesaid agreement the respondent No.2 was bound to deliver possession of suit shop to respondent No.1 on 1st September 2012, but the respondent No.2 without prior permission of respondent No.1 has sublet the disputed shop to the present appellant. The present respondent No.1 had prayed that the present appellant may be rejected from the disputed shop and peaceful possession of disputed shop may be handed over to the respondent No.1.

3. The present appellant being respondent No.1 in the rent petition contested the rent petition by filing replication in the court of Rent Controller, Gilgit wherein he has raised certain legal and factual grounds and have also denied the averments made in the rent petition by asserting that the present appellant is bona fide tenant of suit shop and he is carrying his business in the suit shop as tenant of present respondent No.1 since 1995.

4. Whereas present respondent No.2 Shuja-Ullah through his replication has admitted the claim of present respondent No.1 stating therein that the present respondent No.1 has rented out the suit shop to him and he had sublet the same to the present appellant to run his business being his brother-in-law but the present appellant now reluctant to vacate the suit shop.

5. The learned trial court/Rent Controller settled the following issues out of divergent pleadings of the parties:- i. Whether on the basis of agreement of years 1996 and 2009 between petitioner and respondent No.2, respondent No.1 is liable to be ejected from suit shop? OPP ii. Whether respondent No.1 is liable to be ejected from suit shop as per law and rules? OPP iii. Whether respondent No.1 has acquired suit shop from respondent No.2 without permission of petitioner thereby respondent No.1 is in illegal possession of suit shop? OPP iv. Whether agreements executed in the years 1996 and 2009 between petitioner and respondent No.2 are base on collusion thereby inoperative on the rights of respondent No.1? OPR-1 v. Whether respondent No.1 has paid rent of suit shop to petitioner periodically and the petitioner has received the same? OPR-1 vi. Whether respondent No.1 incurred expenditure to decorate suit shop and is running business worth 16/17 1ac? OPR-1 vii. Whether respondent No.1 is in possession of suit shop in the capacity of tenant? OPR-1 viii. Whether shop No.18 of Baber Block NLI Market is owned by petitioner which he has rented to another person and this petition is based on mala fide? OPR-1 ix. Whether this petition is liable to be dismissed for want of not drafted in accordance with law and rules? OPR-1 x. Relief. After framing of aforementioned issues, the learned trial court/Rent Controller Gilgit directed the parties to adduce their respective evidence as they wished to adduce. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 produced two oral witnesses namely Shuja-Ullah, the present respondent No.2 and one Afzal Khan son of Phurdil Khan besides recording of his own statement in the trial court. The present respondent No.1 has also produced rent agreement Exh.P/1 as documentary evidence. Likewise the present appellant namely Ghulam Murtaza has also produced two oral witnesses namely Abd-ur -Rahim and Noor-ud-Din besides recording of his own statement in the trial court. The present appellant has also produced some documents along with his replication in the trial court.

6. After conclusion of trial the learned Rent Controller Gilgit vide detailed judgment dated 14-03-2017 has allowed the rent petition of the present respondent No.1.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment/decree of the learned trial court/Rent Controller Gilgit the preset appellant had preferred civil 1st rent appeal in the court of learned District Judge Gilgit which was assigned to the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the civil 1st Rent appeal of the appellant vide the impugned judgment/decree dated 30-10-2017 and has maintained the judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court/Rent Controller Gilgit.

8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied from the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court, the appellant has filed the instant second Rent appeal in this court.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case; as such the impugned judgment/decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court is not maintainable and liable to set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the suit shop was rented out to the present appellant by the present respondent No.1 through verbal agreement and the appellant is carrying his business in the disputed shop since 1995. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the impugned judgment/decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court as well as the judgment/decree of trial court are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence of the parties, as such the impugned judgments/decrees of courts below are not maintainable and liable to be set aside.

10. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned judgments/decrees passed by the 1st Appellate Court as well as trial court by contending the learned 1st Appellate Court as well as the learned trial court have rightly passed the judgments/decrees by correct appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties and material available on the record. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the suit shop was given to the respondent No.2 by the respondent No.1 on the basis of rent agreement Exh. P/1 as admitted by him in his replication filed in the trial court and present appellant has illegally and un-authorisedly occupied the disputed shop and the learned courts below have rightly ordered to eject the appellant from the disputed shop which may be maintained.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and also gone through the record minutely with their able assistance.

12. Admittedly the disputed shop bearing No.19 situated at Baber Block NLI Market was allotted to the respondent No.1 by NLI Welfare Trust. The disputed shop was rented out to the respondent No.1 as evident from the rent agreement dated 26-8-2009 Exh.P/1 executed between respondents Nos.1 and

2. This very fact has also admitted by the present respondent No.2 in his replication submitted in the learned trial court on 10-04-2013 as well as in statement recorded in the trial court/ Court of Rent Controller Gilgit on 02-12-2015, hence the respondent No.1/petitioner has proved his claim/case by adducing reliable oral and documentary evidence in the learned trial court. The appellant has miserably failed to substantiate his claim as he has failed to produce any cogent oral or documentary evidence in the trial court except production of some receipts whereby he has paid monthly rent of the disputed shop on behalf of original tenant/respondent No.2, as there exist no written rent agreement between the appellant and respondent No.1. Thus the present/appellant is stranger and he has no nexus with the disputed shop rather he has illegally and un-authorisedly occupied the suit shop. 12(sic.) In view of the matter we have come to the conclusion that there are no valid grounds to differ from the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below in the instant matter.

13. For the reasons stated above, we find that the learned courts below have properly appraised the evidence and relevant record and rendered balanced judgments which need not interference by this court, thus this second appeal having no merits is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. File. SA/177/GB Appeal dismissed.