PLJ 2021 Lahore (Note) 58
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--
-----Art. 199--Ejectment petition--Accepted--Appeal--Dismissed--Rent agreement--Deniel of relationship of tenant and landlord--Purchase of property by respondent from previous landlord--Refusal to execution of new rent agreement--Challenge to--Petitioner claimed be to be owner of demised property but she failed to bring on record any title document in support of her stance--She also admitted her signatures on rent deed--Although she alleged that said rent deed is forged and fabricated but admittedly same has not been challenged by her in any Court thus far--Her plea qua ownership of demised premises is also inconsistent--Rent agreement Ex.A5 executed between petitioner and Dr--Anwar Nasim Gondal is in field, therefore, respondent after having purchased demised property from said Dr. Anwar Nasim became landlord of petitioner by operation of law and denial of such relation is contumacious as such she is liable to be evicted straightaway--Both Courts below after appreciating evidence in its true perspective have rightly passed impugned order/judgment--Counsel for petitioner is unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in impugned order/judgment warranting interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction--Petition dismissed. [Para 6 & 7] A, B & C
PLD 2009 SC 453 ref.
Miss Gulzar Butt, Advocate assisted by Mr. Irfan Aizad Advocate for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 30.11.2018.
PLJ 2021 Lahore (Note) 58
Present: Muhammad Farrukh Irfan Khan, J.
versus
MUNIR HUSSAIN etc.--Respondents
W.P. No. 252571 of 2018, decided on 30.11.2018.
Order
The petitioner through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the validity of impugned judgment dated 06.11.2018 of the learned Addl. District Judge, Sialkot dismissing his appeal against the order dated 4.6.2018 of the learned Special Judge (Rent), Sialkot whereby the said Court accepted the ejectment petition filed by Respondent No. 1 against the petitioner.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that Respondent No. 1 filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner for her eviction from the demised house fully described in Para No. 1 of the petition. It was alleged in the eviction petition that previous owner namely Dr. Muhammad Anwar Naseem Gondal had inducted the petitioner in the demised premises as tenant on the basis of written agreement dated 5.9.2009 for monthly rent of Rs. 200/- that the respondent purchased the demised premises from the previous owner as such he became the landlord by operation of law; that the petitioner was asked time and again to execute fresh tenancy agreement and pay rent but she refused to do so, hence, she is liable to be evicted from the demised premises. The petitioner in her application for leave to contest denied relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and claimed herself to be the owner of the demised premises.
3. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Special Judge Rent framed necessary issues, recorded evidence of the parties thereupon and after hearing the arguments of learned counsel proceeded to accept the ejectment petition vide impugned order dated 04.06.2018. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Appellate Court/Addl. District Judge, who vide impugned judgment dated 06.11.2018 dismissed the same. Now the petitioner has challenged the same in this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order/judgment of the learned Courts below are based on surmises and conjectures and result of mis-reading and non-reading of the evidence; that the respondent could not prove existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, the learned Courts below were not justified in passing of the eviction order; that the petitioner is owner in possession of the demised premises and the rent agreement is a forged and fictitious document; that the evidence in this case has not been properly appreciated and the conclusions drawn therefrom are liable to be set-aside.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
6. The petitioner claimed to be the owner of the demised property but she failed to bring on record any title document in support of her stance. She also admitted her signatures on the rent deed. Although she alleged that the said rent deed is forged and fabricated but admittedly the same has not been challenged by her in any Court thus far. Her plea qua ownership of the demised premises is also inconsistent. In her application for leave to defend she claimed that the demised premises is within Lal Lakir and Tehsildar concerned has made report in this regard in her favour but during cross-examination she improved her stance by alleging that she purchased the demised premises from Anwar Nasim Gondal in lieu of
Rs. 1,50,000/-. by deposing so she admitted the title of said Anwar Nasim Gondal who while appearing in the witness box deposed that he had sold the demised premises to the respondent/landlord. This fact was also admitted by the petitioner as well as her son namely Ali Imran while appearing in the witness box. Rent agreement dated 05.09.2009 Ex.A5 executed between the petitioner and Dr. Anwar Nasim Gondal is in the field, therefore, the respondent after having purchased the demised property from said Dr. Anwar Nasim became the landlord of the petitioner by operation of law and denial of such relation is contumacious as such she is liable to be evicted straightaway. Reliance is placed on case reported as Ahmad Ali alias Ali Ahmad vs. Nasar ud-Din and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 453).
7. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence in its true perspective have rightly passed the impugned order/judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order/judgment warranting interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. Resultantly, this petition being without any substance is dismissed in-limine.
(Y.A.) Appeal dismissed
0 comments:
Post a Comment