2006SCMR1061 (PLP)

RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.

Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against Lahore High Court judgment, dated 17-11-2000 passed in second appeal against Order No.148 of 1993, allowing the same, maintaining the order passed by Rent Controller, Zafarwal and setting aside the appellate forum's judgment against the order of the Rent Controller. (2). One Muhammad Shafi obtained transfer order on 25-8-1975 from Settlement Department in respect of Plots Nos.436 and 437 measuring 1-00 Kanal, situated in Zafarwal, from whom the petitioner acquired title through arbitration proceedings upheld by a Civil Court. Petitioner filed ejectment proceedings against respondents Nos.l and 2 under section 13 of the erstwhile West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, 1959) on the ground of default in payment of rent on the averments that the said respondents had established a bus stand and unauthorisedly constructed certain shops over the said plots. (3). Stance of the respondents in the written statement appears to be that they were not served with the notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance, 1959 and that they had filed a suit for permanent injunction against Muhammad Latif, therefore, ejectment petition was incompetent and not maintainable. It was urged that particulars of the plots and boundaries thereof were not specified by the petitioner in his pleadings. Jurisdiction of the Court was challenged on the premise that, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. (4). Respondent No.4 Muhammad Latif, though arrayed as one of the respondents, his name was deleted with the permission of the Rent Controller. (5). Both the parties adduced evidence. Issues were struck. Upon consideration of the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties. Rent Controller, Zafarwal vide order, dated 20-6-1987 rejected the ejectment petition for the reason that the petitioner failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court for determination of their title. Petitioner challenged this order in Civil Appeal No.43 of 1993, which came up for hearing before an Additional District Judge, who took a contrary view of the matter and held that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and thus, allowed the ejectment petition. Appellate Court's judgment was assailed by respondents Nos.l and 2 before the Lahore High Court in second appeal, which has been allowed vide judgment impugned in this petition, remanding the case to the Civil Judge with the direction to examine the question of title within six months. (6). We have heard Messrs Tariq Masood, Mian Sarfrazul Hassan and Ghulam Sabir Kaifi, learned Advocates Supreme Court for the parties and Raja Abdur Rehman, learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab on Court notice. While the stance of the petitioner is that he is the owner and landlord of Plots Nos.436 and 437 measuring 1-00 Kanal, duly transferred by the Settlement organization in favour of Muhammad Shafi through a Permanent Transfer Deed from whom he acquired valid right and title to it, the case of the contesting respondents appears to he that in fact the bus stand as well as the shops have been established on Khasra No.2191, which was Ghairmumkan land as recorded in Jamabandi for the year 1952-53 and not on Plots Nos.436 and 437, as claimed by the petitioner. Learned High Court in the impugned judgment, while remanding the case, question to be determined by the Civil Court, has rightly observed that controversy regarding ownership can only be determined by Civil Court and not by Rent Controller. This view has been taken by this Court in Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad 1983 SCMR 1064 and reiterated in subsequent cases. (7). Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that the question of title was decided by Civil Judge 1st Class, Narowal in Civil Suits Nos.1009 of 1981 and 29 of 1986 decided on 31-1-1988 filed by Muhammad Latif against Town Committee, Zafarwal and others. In fact, this judgment was not in the field when the ejectment petition was rejected by Rent Controller. In any event, it does not finally determine the question of title. Essentially the bone of contention between the parties appears to be the demarcation of the land in occupation of respondents Nos.l and 2 is that petitioner is claiming the said land having been transferred to him as Plot Nos.436 and 437 whereas Town Committee, Zafarwal claims it to be their property as part of Khasra No.2191. In our considered opinion, this question can also be resolved by the Civil Court, which is a Court of ultimate jurisdiction and not in the ejectment proceedings under the provisions of Ordinance, 1959. (8). For the aforesaid facts, reasons and circumstances, we find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. M.H./K-27/SC Leave refused.