1988 PLP 679 (SCMR)

ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment dated 4th December, 1986, whereby the petitioner's appeal under section 21 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller dismissing her application for ejectment of the respondent from the disputed premises was maintained. Admittedly the petitioner is the sister‑in‑law of the respondent, and therefore, the parties are closely related. The plea of the respondent as against the ejectment application of the petitioner was that there was no relationship of landlord tenant between the parties, consequently there was no question of payment of rent or default therein. The respondent in support of his plea set up a rival claim of title to the premises. The learned Rent Controller found the alleged agreement of tenancy, in proof whereof the photo copy was produced, not to have been proved as it was denied by the respondent. The latter in order to establish his title relied upon P.T. I form issued by the Excise Department showing him as the owner. ‑The relevancy of the last mentioned document was disputed before the Rent Controller by the petitioner on the ground that the description of the property in the said document does not tally with the disputed premises and on some other grounds. As these disputed questions with regard to the title in the property were raised, the learned Rent Controller took the view that the question of title can be properly resolved by adjudication in the civil Court in the light of all the evidence that the parties may like to produce. However, upon the material placed before him the learned Rent Controller reached the conclusion that the respondent had never paid rent to the petitioner and that otherwise also she had failed to prove that he was her tenant. The learned Judge in the High Court after examining the evidence on record agreed with the view taken by the Rent Controller. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are inclined to agree that the learned Rent Controller rightly declined to record a finding with regard to the rival claims to ownership of the property set up by the parties, and that in absence of affirmative evidence that the respondent was the tenant of the petitioner, the ejectment application was rightly dismissed. However, learned counsel expressed an apprehension that the observations made in the two judgments against the petitioner in regard to her title may operate as res judicata in any proceedings she may file in the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. This apprehension seems to us to be unfounded in view of clear observations made by the learned Single Judge refraining from touching the question of title and leaving it to the civil Court to determine the same. Nevertheless in order to alley any misconception we make it clear that no observation made in the two judgments would in any way prejudice either party in any suit that might be filed in the civil Court, which will be decided on its own merits. With these observation this petition is dismissed. M.I. /H‑32/S Petition dismissed