1991 PLP 1308 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.30‑‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine petitioners' contention that they never acknowledged that they were in possession of property as tenants as defined in Act XXVIII of 1958; that petitioners always disputed the allegation of respondent that premises in dispute was transferred to him; that the Rent Controller did not have jurisdiction; that respondent should have settled the question of title in the Civil Court and that respondent had stated in this cross‑examination that petitioners were in un-authorised possession of disputed property. Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Raja M. Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 31st January, 1990. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑The respondent Haji Ghulam Mustafa brought an application for the eviction of Raja Muhammad Sarwar and Raja Ghulam Sarwar alleging therein that he was transferee of House No.M‑368, Rawalpindi, and a triangular piece of courtyard measuring 4 marlas was also a part of the said house, but are in possession of the respondents since before 1958. By operation of law the petitioners had become tenants of the respondent in respect of the disputed room. In the written statement, the petitioners denied the ownership of the respondent. The learned Rent Controller framed an issue with respect to the relationship of landlord and tenant. By an order dated 19‑6‑1975 the learned Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition and ordered the eviction of the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge who accepted the same and set aside the order of Rent Controller. It was held by the Additional District Judge that since the petitioners were unauthorised occupants of the premises in question, their ejectment could not be ordered.

2. The respondent filed a second appeal in the High Court which was accepted by the High Court on 25‑10‑1986. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, the petitioners seek leave to appeal.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there never existed any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioners never acknowledged that they were in possession of the property as tenants as defined in Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The petitioners always disputed the allegation of the respondent that the premises in dispute was transferred to him. On this view of the matter, the learned Rent Controller did not have jurisdiction. The respondent should have settled the question of title in the Civil Court. The learned counsel has referred to the cross‑examination of the respondent wherein he had stated that the petitioners are in unauthorised possession of the disputed property.

4. The contention raised by the learned counsel requires examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security Rs.5,

000. AA./M‑1278/S Leave to appeal granted.