1998 PLP 349 (SCMR)

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.

This order will dispose of Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1970-L of 1996 arising out of Writ Petition No. 12286 of 1996 and Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.311-L of 1997 arising out of Review Application filed in the High Court, as the parties to both these petitions are one and the same.

2. Necessary facts, briefly stated, are that Abdul Razzaq respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) filed an application for ejectment of Muhammad Siddique, petitioner, from a portion of the house under his possession on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal need in good faith. The learned Rent Controller, after receiving the reply, framing the issues and recording the - evidence dismissed the Ejectment Application on 9-2-1994, but on appeal filed, the order of the Rent Controller was set aside and eviction petition was allowed vide judgment dated 3-7-1996. This judgment of the appellate Court was then assailed by filing Writ Petition No. 12286 of 1996 and the same was dismissed by the learned Judge of the High Court vide order dated 15-7-1996. Muhammad Siddique petitioner then filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal (No. 1970-L of 1996) against this order. He also filed a Review Application in the High Court seeking review of the order dated 15-7-1996. The Review Application was dismissed by the learned Judge of the High Court vide order dated 13-2-1997 which order was then assailed by filing the other Petition in this Court i.e. Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.311-L of 1997.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of both the petitions argued that neither Abdul Razzaq respondent nor his father Abdul Majeed, in the previous litigation, could establish their ownership of the house in question and as such neither the respondent nor his father could legally file the Eviction Petition. He pointed out that Abdul Majeed, father of Abdul Razzaq respondent filed a suit for possession against Muhammad Siddique petitioner but the same was withdrawn on 9-7-1984. Abdul Majeed then filed Ejectment Petition against the petitioner which was accepted on 16-6-1986 but the said order was set aside on an appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 6-3-1989 holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant could not be established. Abdul Majeed then filed a Writ Petition which was dismissed on 20-4-1991 with the observation that the petitioner should seek determination of the title from the Civil Court. Abdul Majeed then filed a suit which was dismissed on 14-10-1991 and the appeal filed against the said order was also got dismissed as withdrawn on 1-12-1994.

4. Mr. A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner added that after failure of Abdul Majeed in the aforesaid litigation, Abdul Razzaq his son then entered the arena and filed ejectment application and succeeded in getting the eviction order. He argued that the finding of the learned Courts below that the relationship of tenancy existed, is unwarranted.

5. Having heard the learned counsel at some length and gone through the material on record, we find that the plea urged is without merit. Abdul Majeed sold the house to his son Abdul Razzaq vide registered sale deed Exh.A-5. Muhammad Siddique petitioner claims to be occupying the house after partition as a refugee. The said house as per the statement of Girdawar was transferred to Abdul Majeed under Settlement Scheme No.7 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. Muhammad Siddique petitioner was as such statutory tenant of the transferee by virtue of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. Abdul Razzaq respondent being the owner vide registered sale deed Exh.A-5 is the owner and the person entitled to receive rent of the portion of the house in question. The petitioner has admittedly not paid any rent for all these years and moreover on account of his denial of tenancy, which otherwise under law exists, rendered himself liable to summary eviction. The petitioner has successfully avoided his eviction for all these years. Now that the substantial justice has been done, he cannot be allowed to remain in occupation of the disputed premises. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are, therefore, not persuaded to intervene with the well reasoned order as that will amount to allowing to prolong the stay of the petitioner in the house without paying therefore.

6. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and both the petitions are dismissed. A.A./M-3374/S Leave refused.