PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 128
[Multan Bench, Multan]
Present: Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J.
MUHAMMAD SAFDAR--Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ AHMED etc.--Respondents
C.R. No. 1144-D of 2005, heard on 24.5.2023.
Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (VII of 2009)--
----S. 15, 19--Suit for ejectment--Dismissed--Tenancy agreement--Violation of conditions of tenancy agreement--Challenge to--Validity of decree--Appeal--Allowed--Rent lease--Construction of workshop--Expiry of tenancy period--The petitioner admitted during his cross examination that after January, 1999 he neither paid rent to respondents nor deposited it with Court--Respondents are owners of suit property and after expiry of tenancy period, petitioner/defendant has no right to retain suit property without any valid permission of respondents/plaintiffs, as such appellate Court rightly accepted appeal of respondents and decreed suit as prayed for--It is settled law that admitted facts need not to be proved--It is well settled law that in event of conflict of judgments, findings of appellate Court are to be preferred and respected, unless it is shown from record that such findings are not supported by evidence--Civil revision dismissed. [Para 4, 5 & 6] A, B & C
Ref. 1991 SCMR 2300, 2021 SCMR 1534, 2008 SCMR 398,
2023 SCMR 815.
Mr. Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad Chaudhary, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Faisal Bashir Chaudhary, Advocate for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 24.5.2023.
Judgment
Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the judgment & decree dated 18.07.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal who accepted the appeal of the respondents, set aside the judgment & decree dated 12.02.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sahiwal and decreed the suit for ejectment filed by the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioner/defendant and contended that the petitioner/defendant is tenant of land measuring 10 Marla which is part of land measuring 07 Kanal 02 Marla situated in Khata No. 128/85, Khatoni No. 337 Khasra Nos. 8-5/1, 5/2, 5/3 situated in Chak No. 114/9-L, Sahiwal owned by the respondents/plaintiffs. That the petitioner/defendant took the suit land on lease @ Rs. 20/-per Marla and an agreement dated 16.12.1990 was written. It was settled that the petitioner/defendant will pay rent/lease amount till 5th of every month--Further settled that the petitioner/defendant will construct a workshop on his own and at the time of vacation of the premises, he would be at liberty to demolish the structure and would beat liberty to take away the debris. The respondents/plaintiffs contended that petitioner/defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, as such he may be ejected from the suit land. The petitioner/defendant filed contesting written statement. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed issues, recorded pro and contra evidence of the parties and finally dismissed the suit vide judgment & decree dated 12.02.2005. Being dejected, the respondents filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment & decree dated 18.07.2005 and by setting aside the judgment & decree dated 12.02.2005 passed by the learned trial Court, the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed. Hence, this civil revision.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
4. The execution of the tenancy agreement between the parties and rate of rent is admitted. The petitioner/defendant has admitted during his evidence (as D.W.1) that he has established a workshop on the suit property owned by the respondents/ plaintiffs. The petitioner/defendant also admitted during his cross examination that after January, 1999 he neither paid the rent to the respondents/plaintiffs nor deposited it with the Court. It is settled law that admitted facts need not to be proved. Reliance is placed on the cases of Mst. Nur Jehan Begum through LRs v. Syed Mujtaba Ali Naqvi (1991 SCMR 2300) and Mst. Rehmat and others vs Mst. Zubaida Begum and others (2021 SCMR 1534).
5. Further, as the respondents/plaintiffs are owners of the suit property and after expiry of the tenancy period, the petitioner/ defendant has no right to retain the suit property without any valid permission of the respondents/plaintiffs, as such the learned appellate Court rightly accepted the appeal of the respondents/plaintiffs and decreed the suit as prayed for.
6. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the legal and factual aspects of the case and dismissed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs whereas the learned appellate Court, after discussing the facts as well as evidence of the parties, through a well reasoned judgment & decree has rightly allowed the appeal of the respondents. It is well settled law that in the event of conflict of judgments, findings of appellate Court are to be preferred and respected, unless it is shown from the record that such findings are not supported by evidence. Reliance is placed on the cases reported as Muhammad Hafeez & another vs. District Judge, Karachi East & another (2008 SCMR 398) and Rao Abdul Rehman (deceased) through legal heirs vs. Muhammad Afzal (deceased) through legal heirs and others (2023 SCMR 815).
7. In view of above, this civil revision having no merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs
(J.K.) Revision dismissed
0 Comments