1989 PLP 3821 (MLD)

Inayat Hussain Haidari for Appellant. Muhammad Saddique Butt for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th March, 1989. This first appeal was directed against the order dated 28‑5‑1988 of the learned Additional Rent Controller, ordering eviction of the appellant from the property in dispute.

2. The appellant had denied the existence of relationship of tenancy which denial was held to be unfounded by the learned Additional Rent Controller on the ground that the respondent was the owner in view of the sale‑deed Ex. P2 executed by Mian Muhammad Bashir in favour of Mst. Gulzar Begum respondent. It was observed that Mian Muhammad Bashir had purchased the said property from Riaz Ahmad who got the same transferred vide P.T.D. issued by the Settlement Authority. The learned Additional Rent Controller thus finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant stood proved on record ordered the eviction forthwith of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the aforesaid finding of the learned Additional Rent Controller is contrary to record. He has taken me through the evidence on record, particularly the statement of P.W.1. Pehlwan Khan attorney of the respondent and the statement of the appellant made as P.W.

3. Pehlwan Khan PW 1 in cross‑examination accepted the suggestion that the name of Raoof appellant stands recorded as owner and the name of the respondent does not appear in the said record as owner as correct. He further stated that Abdur Raoof is in an unauthorised possession of the house in dispute and that Raoof also pays the property tax of the house and that the property tax is not being paid by them. He further admitted that he has no evidence within him to show that Raoof was a tenant in the house in question. He further admitted that the P.T.D. which was obtained by Muhammad Riaz was cancelled though he added that this was done in ex parte proceedings. These admissions coming from the mouth of the attorney for the respondent were sufficient to decide the issue as to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant against the respondent and in favour of the appellant. As regards the stay order issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 253‑R‑1979 it will be noted that the operation of the order declaring the P.T.D. obtained by Riaz Ahmad as bogus was not suspended. The order passed by this Court was to maintain the status quo, meaning thereby to maintain the position obtaining on the date that the order was passed, i.e. on 5‑6‑1979. The position then obtaining was that the land had already been entered in the name of the Government and the P.T.D. being relied upon was held as bogus and as such a document which failed to confer any right. In this situation the respondent had no locus standi to invoke jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The aspects noted above were, however, not taken note of by the learned Additional Rent Controller. The impugned order is thus not sustainable in law. The same is, therefore, hereby set aside. The appeal is accepted with the result that the application for ejectment filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. The respondent will pay the cost of this appeal. H.B.T./A‑718/L Appeal accepted.