1985 PLP 1256 (SCMR)

Abdul Aziz v. Kanthu Mullick 10 I C 467 and Krishna Prasad v. Baraboni Coal Concern A I R 1937 P C 251 distinguished. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13 (2)(i)‑‑Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975), S. 10‑‑Ejectment‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant denied despite execution of rent note in favour of landlady‑‑Plea that demised evacuee property was later discovered to be evacuee trust property and that Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to proceed, repelled‑‑Question whether property was evacuee trust or not was a matter between department and landlady‑‑Even if it was such property, it was open to Chairman of Evacuee Trust Properties Board to validate transfer‑‑Order of ejectment upheld‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.

1. Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1984. M.S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑The petitioner, in an ejectment proceeding brought by respondent Mst Fazal Bibi denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant even though he had executed a rent note in her favour. His case that the house in question was evacuee trust property and as such neither there was the relationship nor had the Rent Controller jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. His plea having failed before the Controller as also in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Multan, he invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court but with no success.

2. The execution of the rent agreement is not denied but it is submitted that, later, in response to a notice from the Evacuee Trust Property Administration the petitioner had paid rent to that Administra tion from 1‑4‑1960 td 10‑6‑1979. The Appellate Court' after elaborately discussing the evidence on the point held that the Evacuee Trust Property Administration accepted his tenancy under the administration at his own request but later, on coming, to know of the case of Mst. Fazal Bibi, had refused to accept any further rent from him and that the rent under the rent note was Rs.140 while the petitioner had paid rent to the administration at Rs.2 per month.

3. The contention is that the petitioner, in spite of having executed the rent note in favour of Mst. Fazal Bibi, was not estopped, upon the discovery that the property was evacuee trust property, from questioning her status as landlord. In support he cited Abdul Aziz v. Kanthu Mullick 10 I C 467 and Krishna Prasad v. Baraboni Coal Concern AIR 1937 P C

251. The ruling in these cited cases however, has not applicability to the peculiar circumstance of the matter in hand. Here the petitioner had himself invited the notice from the Evacuee Trust Property Administration and had started paying rent to them behind the back of the landlord. Learned counsel concedes that the petitioner did not even inform Mst. Fazal Bibi of his having received the notice from the administration. Moreover, the question whether the property was evacuee trust or not was a matter between the Department and Mst. Fazal Bibi and even if it was such property it was open to the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board to validate the transfer under section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975). Considering the circumstance of the case and the conduct of the petitioner, we are satisfied that the refusal by the High Court to grant a writ against the order of his ejectment is not liable to interference by this Court. The petition is dismissed. M . I . Petition dismissed.