1984 PLP 258 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑This petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Karachi High Court, dated 20‑5‑1982 whereby the findings of the learned Rent Controller were reversed and the case was remanded to him to decide the remaining issues.

2. The respondent Abdul Majid Khan holding a permanent transfer deed for the property bearing City Survey No. 116 Custodian Nos. A‑8 to 11) in the town of Jamesabad (Kot Ghulam Muhammad), district Tharparkar, sought eviction of petitioner No. 4 as his tenant and of petitioners 1 to 3 as sub‑tenants. A preliminary issue about the existence of relationship of land lord and tenant was framed. The contention of the petitioners as contained in their reply to the ejectment application was that the respondent "had managed with the settlement staff and cot C. S. No. 116, fraudulently added at the time of issuance of his P. T. D. and the very allotment of C. S. No. 116 in the name of the applicant is fraudulent, illegal, void ab initio and of no legal consequence." The learned Rent Controller preferred the oral evidence of the petitioner over the documentary evidence of the respondent for the sole reason that the latter did not appear in the witness‑box and have himself cross‑examined. The High Court reversed this finding on the ground that the Rent Controller being an authors. having limited jurisdiction could not sit in judgment over the P. T. D. which had the effect of establishing the statutory relationship of landlord and tenant.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not seriously dispute that the Controller' jurisdiction was limited and within the limits of his jurisdiction he could not ignore, set aside or interfere with the title handed' over to the respondent in another hierarchy. His contention, however is that if he had a grievance with regard to the P. T. D. belong forged and fraudulent the deed itself could not be conclusive and he could not be without a remedy. He feels that such is the effect of the finding of the learned Judge of the High Court who, according to him, held that the Permanent Transfer Deed "was conclusive on his title as transferee of the property under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958."

4. We do not share this opinion of the learned counsel for the peti tioners, for a conclusiveness has been held to be with reference to the limited jurisdiction of the proceedings before the Controller. It did not foreclose the right of the petitioners, if any to agitate in appropriate forum on the grounds on which they wanted to challenge it. It is true that on the averments they are not without a remedy only they have to select the appropriate forum which in any case, is not that of the, Rent Controller for deciding questions of fraud and collusion in respect to the permanent transfer deed.

5. Except for these observations we find no merit in this petition and leave to appeal is refused. S.G.D Petition dismissed.