2019 PLP 1570 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.

The petitioners are aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore dated 16.10.2012 whereby the said court while allowing the appeal of respondent No.1 against the judgment of the learned Rent Tribunal dated 26.07.2011, accepted the ejectment petition and directed the petitioners to vacate the demised premises within 60 days.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed a petition against the petitioners for their eviction from the demised property fully described in para No.1 of the petition. Petitioners contested the said application and totally denied existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller framed following issues:-

1. Where there exist relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties? OPA

2. Relief.

3. Both the parties adduced evidence qua their respective claims and after hearing the arguments, learned Rent Controller proceeded to dismiss the ejectment petition filed by respondent No.1 vide judgment dated 26.07.2011. Being aggrieved respondent filed appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which was accepted vide impugned judgment dated 16.10.2012. Hence, this Constitutional petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Court is result of mis-reading and non-reading of the evidence; that respondent No.1 could not establish relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that the demised premises is not owned by respondent and it is Shamlat-e-Deh and the petitioners are in possession thereon since the year 1960; that the utility bills of the demised premises are in the names of their predecessor which show petitioner's longstanding possession over the same; that the learned Rent Controller after due appreciation of the material available on record had rightly arrived at a conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties which has illegally been set-aside by the learned lower appellate court; that the evidence in this case has not been properly evaluated by the learned lower appellate court and the conclusion drawn therefrom is liable to be set-aside.

5. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the impugned judgment of the learned lower appellate court is well reasoned; that the respondent through cogent and reliable evidence successfully proved existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that the petitioners could not prove their stance that the demised premises is Shamlat-e-Deh and they are in possession thereupon since the year 1960; that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration in this regard which has been dismissed due to non-production of evidence; that respondent No.1 along with other legal heirs has a valid title over the demised premises as such the learned Appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment which need no interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction.

6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

7. It was the claim of the petitioners that the property in dispute is Shamlat-e-Deh and they are in its occupation since the year 1960, however, they have miserably failed to establish this claim through any cogent and confidence inspiring evidence. It is an admitted fact that in order to establish their claim they filed an independent suit for declaration which has been dismissed on 08.06.2010 for non-production of evidence. On the contrary, respondent No.1 in order to establish his claim over the demised premises besides producing Fard Jammabandies Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 also tendered Form PT-10 Ex.A 1 and receipts of payment of property tax Ex.A5 and there is nothing on record in their rebuttal. Merely on the basis of electricity and sui gas bills etc. the petitioners cannot legitimize their possession over the demised premises as owners because a tenant can also get installed such connections in his/her name. It is evident from the material available on record that presently respondent No.1 alongwith others have a valid title of the demised premises and in the absence of anything contrary to it, petitioner's possession over it would be presumed as being a tenant. Reliance is placed on case reported as Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique and 2 others (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 45) wherein it has been laid down as under:- "The determination of the pivotal question related to the legal status of the parties vis- -vis the premises and the nature of their relationship inter se, would certainly be a mixed question of law and fact to be decided in the light of the evidence. The title of the petitioner is not as such disputed and in absence of any evidence in rebuttal, there would be a strong presumption of existence of tenancy between the parties."

8. The learned Appellate Court after due appreciation of the evidence available on record has rightly arrived at a conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties and learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to persuade this Court to take a contrary view. Resultantly, this petition being without any substance is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to respondent No.1 within 30 days from the date hereof. MQ/M-14/L Petition dismissed.