1994 PLP 599 (MLD)

Respondents Nos.3 to 10 filed an eviction petition for ejectment of the petitioner Mst. Inayat Begum from ground floor of Property No.B-1111, situated inside Bhati Gate, Lahore, before the learned Rent Controller on 11-7-1984 on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal need. The ejectment petition was contested by the present petitioner by filing written statement in the case. A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner that the respondents are not her landlords and that she is owner of the property in question. The learned Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue:-- "Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?" . The learned Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a tenant under the contesting respondents. He, therefore,, proceeded to pass an ejectment order against the petitioner on 28-6-1989. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 23-1-1990. This petition has been moved against the orders of respondents Nos.1 and 2 referred to above. It is contended by the learned counsel that there is no evidence on the record to show that the contesting respondents are owners of the property in question. It is next argued by the learned counsel that evidence of the petitioner was not recorded by the learned Rent Controller despite the fact that she appeared with her evidence before him. He also argued that later on an application was moved by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 6-7-1987 and to allow her to lead her evidence. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents submits that the respondents produced sufficient evidence to show that they are owners of the property in question.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with care. There is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Haji Muhammad Rafique A-W.1, Muhammad Saeed A.W.2 and Hasan Din A.W.3 appeared on behalf of the respondents. Their evidence will show beyond any reasonable doubt that the petitioner is a tenant under the contesting respondents. No evidence was produced on behalf of the petitioner. The perusal of the record shows that petitioner was given several opportunities to produce her evidence but she failed to do so. On the basis of the evidence of the contesting respondents the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondents are landlords and the petitioner is a tenant under them. This finding of fact has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, in its judgment referred to above. It is established on record that no evidence in rebuttal was produced by the present petitioner to show that she is owner of the property in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any illegality much less jurisdictional defect in the impugned order passed by the learned Courts below. This being so, no case for interference has been made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case the petitioner is given four months time to hand over the vacant possession of the property in question to the contesting respondents.

3. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner says that he would like to file a suit to establish her title over the property in question, in the light of judgment reported as Rehmatullah v. M. Ali and another (1983 SCMR 1064). She may do so. In case such a suit is instituted, the Court taking cognizance thereof shall decide it within four months as mentioned above. H.B.T./1-73/L Petition dismissed.