1986 PLP 328 (MLD)

Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad 1983 S C M R 1064 and S.M. Hayat v. Ikramul Haque Malik 1984 C L C 316 rel. Zahid Marghoob for Appellant. S.A. Jalib Chowdhry for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th February, 1986. The ejectment case was filed by the appellant /landlady on 22‑12‑1980 before the Rent Controller against the tenant /respondent on the ground of the default in the payment of rent w.e.f. 1‑9‑1974 and on personal requirement. A written statement was filed by the respondent to challenge the relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties. The case of the respondent was that he was never the tenant of the landlady, he never paid rent to her and that in fact he had purchased the property and he was the owner. After recording evidence of the parties and hearing arguments, by order dated 15‑8‑1984, the Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application holding that relationship of landlord and tenant has not been' established. Being aggrieved, the landlady has filed the present rent appeal under section 21(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. I have heard Mr.Zahid Marghoob, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. A. Jalib Chowdhry, Learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the parties have taken me through the entire record, which includes the pleadings, evidence of the parties and documents produced in evidence and the impugned order dated l5‑8‑1984. The premises in question are situated in a Katchi Abadi and none of the parties possesses any document of title. The case of the appellant is based on the extract from the Excise and Taxation Register (PT1) and her oral testimony. The case of the respondent was that the property had been sold by the appellant to one Taj Muhammad Balouch, and then later on the property had been purchased by the respondent from the two widows of Taj Muhammad Balouch through their attorney Sher Muhammad. There are no rent receipts showing payment of rent to the A appellant by the respondent. There is also no tenancy agreement. Apparently this is a title‑involving case in' the sense that the question of relationship of landlady and tenant depended on the respondent establishing title to the property. In fact the Rent Controller in his impugned order has clearly observed that he is not deciding the question of title but then he observed that the appellant had failed to adduce any evidence that would could show her as owner or entitled to recover the rent. However, it is further observed by the Rent Controller that the evidence led by both the parties in support of their contentions at least goes to create a doubt regarding ownership of the appellant. Reference may here be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad reported in 1983 S C M R 1064, in which certain general principles about title involving ejectment cases have been laid down by the Supreme Court. Reference may also be made to a judgment delivered by me in the case of S.M. Hayat v. Ikramui Haque Malik 1984 C L C

316. In the present title‑involving ejectment case, after going through the evidence on record I agree with the Rent Controller that the evidence led by both the parties in support of their contentions goes to create a double regarding the ownership of the appellant. In the circumstances, the kept Controller correctly dismissed the ejectment application refusing .to eject the respondent from the premises in question. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the question of determining the title of the property should have been left to be decided in a civil Court through a civil suit and by this order, permission is granted to the appellant, if she so desires, to file a suit in a civil Court for establishing her title. Subject to this, the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed.

3. F.R.A. No.891/84 is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs. M. Y. H.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.