2022 C L C 1987
[Balochistan]
Before Rozi Khan Barrech, J
SHER MUHAMMAD ----Appellant
Versus
BIBI SAFIA and 4 others ----Respondents
F.A.O. No.63 of 2018, decided on 12th January, 2021.
(a) Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ---
----S.13 ---Eviction of tenant ---Willful default--- Personal bona fide need of landlord---Denial
of relationship of landlord and tenant ---Rent Controller, jurisdiction of ---Scope ---
Appellant/tenant contended that Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction in the present matter as
he was tenant of previous landlord of suit -house and was in its occupancy since long---Held,
that though alleged previous landlord appeared as a witness for appellant but failed to establish his claim through any cogent and confidence inspiring evidence ---Alleged previous
landlord, had filed an independent suit for declaration to establish his claim which was dismissed and had attained finality for not being assailed before the appellate cour t---
Landlord- respondent had produced mutation entries of demised property in his favour
whereas the appellant failed to produce any sufficient evidence to justify his possession in any lawful capacity ---As the appellant failed to produce any title document to support his
possession over the demised property, Rent Controller or the Appellate Court were competent to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ---
Existence of relationship between the parties would imply acceptance of t itle of landlord; as
such whenever tenant denied that title and it was established that he was a tenant, he would forfeit his tenancy having become a trespasser and would be liable to be ejected forthwith---No illegality or infirmity was found in impugned judgment/order of eviction of appellant
passed by the Rent Controller ---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Ahmed Ali alias Ali Ahmed v. Nasar -ud-Din and others PLD 2009 SC 453 ref.
(b) Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ---
----S.13 ---Eviction of tenant ---Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant ---Verbal tenancy
agreement ---Scope ---Tenant/appellant contended that in absence of tenancy agreement or
rent receipt, mere mutation entry/ownership was not a determining factor to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ---Held, that contention of the tenant
was not relevant as in the eviction application the landlord had specifically given details of oral agreement between the parties ---Provisions of the Ba lochistan Urban Rent Restriction
Ordinance, 1959 ( 'the Ordinance 1959') did not contain any condition that agreement of
landlord and tenant must be in particular form, it could even be verbal ---Agreement
mentioned in S.13(2)(i) of the Ordinance 1959, was any type of agreement without any
insistence on formalities ---Verbal agreement of tenancy had always been accepted as an
agreement under the provisions of law ---Appeal was dismissed.
Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique PLD 2007 SC 45 ref.
(c) Balochistan U rban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ---
----S.13 ---Eviction of tenant ---Willful default--- Personal bona fide need of landlord---Denial
of relationship of landlord and tenant ---Burden of proof ---Appellant/tenant contended that he
was tenant of previ ous landlord of suit -house and was in its occupancy since long---Held,
that tenant had to stand on his own legs and was required to discharge onus of proof upon
him---Appellant denied relationship of landlord and tenant, thus burden of proof heavily
shifte d on him to prove his title, capacity or locus standi for retaining the demised premises --
-Appellant though in his written -reply had challenged ownership of demised premises, but
failed to prove the same through oral and documentary evidence ---If tenant de nied
relationship of landlord and tenant, tenancy was automatically terminated and he was liable
to eviction ---Appeal was dismissed.
Mansoor Khan Jadoon for Appellant.
Iqbal Ahmed Kasi for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 2nd November, 2020.
JUDGMENT
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J. ----The appellant Sher Muhammad son of Abdul Samad
assailed the judgment dated 08.10.2018 ("impugned judgment") passed by Civil Judge -
III/Rent Controller, Quetta, (hereinafter "rent controller"), whereby the Eviction Applicat ion
No.03 of 2015 filed by the respondents was accepted and the appellant was directed to handover the vacant possession of the house built on the land bearing Khewat No.211, Khatooni Nos.408 to 412, Khasra No.5 Qitas, measuring 1039 sq ft, situated in War d No.52
Tappa No.3, Mujahid Street, near Kasi Graveyard City District Quetta ("disputed property") to the applicant/respondents within forty five days.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that the respondent (landlord)
namely Mal ik Muhammad Jaffar Kasi filed the aforesaid eviction application under section
13 of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter "the Ordinance, 1959") against the appellant/tenant Sher Muhammad (tenant) for his eviction from the disputed property mainly on the ground of default and personal requirement. When put on
notice by the rent controller, the appellant/tenant contested the application inter alia, on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the p arties. In view of the
allegation and assertion of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties concerning
the house bearing Khewat No.211, Khatooni Nos .408 to 412, Khasra No. 5 Qiras,
measuring 1039 sq ft, situated in Ward No.52 Tappa No.3, Mujahid Street, near Kasi Graveyard City District Quetta?
2. Whether the applicant is entitled for the relief claimed for?
3. Relief?"
After framing of issues, the t rial court directed the parties to produce their respective
evidence, which was recorded and finally the eviction application filed by the respondent/landlord was accepted vide impugned judgment dated 08.10.2018 and the appellant/tenant was directed to vacate the disputed property within forty five days, which is
now impugned by the appellant/tenant by filing the instant appeal.
3. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record
of the case and perused the relevant law on the subject as well.
4. The main controversy between the parties is whether there exists a relationship of
landlord and tenant between them. It was claimed by the appellant that he is tenant of Abdul
Raziq (RW- 4) and he is in its occupation since long. However, he himself failed to establish
his claim through any cogent and confidence inspiring evidence. It is an admitted fact that in order to establish his claim RW- 4 filed an independent suit for declaration, which has been
dismissed by the Civil Judge on 12.05.2018, which was not challenged before the appellate
court and it attained finality. On the contrary the respondent/landlord in order to establish his claim over the demised premises beside producing mutation entries of the disputed property
Ex.P/ A-1, which is in the name of the respondent. The appellant/tenant failed to place a
single piece of documentary evidence showing that the disputed property has ever been occupied by him as the owner nor any agreement to sell could be brought on record and the
appellant also failed to produce any sufficient evidence to justify his possession in any lawful capacity.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in case of complicated
question of title, the learned Rent Controller lacks juris diction under the Rent Restriction
Ordinance, 1959, is not tenable, because if the tenant fails to produce any title document to support his possession over the premises in question, the Rent Controller, or the Appellate Court are competent to determine th e relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
Reference in this respect is to be made to the case of Ahmed Ali alias Ali Ahmed v. Nasar -
ud-Din and others (PLD 2009 SC 453), wherein, at page No.458, it was observed as under:
"Though the Rent C ontroller is not competent to determine the question of title of the
property assuming the role of a civil Court, but if the tenant fails to produce the documentary evidence to support his title over the premises in dispute, the Rent Controller can determi ne the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties."
6. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in absence of
tenancy agreement or rent receipt, the mere mutation entry / ownership is not determining
factor to establi sh the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties, is also not
relevant, as the respondent in the eviction application had specifically pleaded that appellant
is occupying the disputed property as a tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 3000/ - payable in
advance on 5th of each succeeding month through oral agreement w.e.f. year 2002.
7. The provisions of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 do not
contain any condition that agreement of landlord and tenant must be in a particular form, it may even be verbal. Agreement mentioned in provision of Section 13(2)(i) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, has been interpreted as any type of agreement without any insistence on formalities. Verbal agreement of tenancy has al ways been accepted
as an agreement under the provisions of law. In this respect reliance is placed on a case titled as Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique PLD 2007 Supreme Court 45. Relevant portion therefrom is as under:
"This is settled proposition of law that a landlord may not be essentially an owner of
the property and ownership may not always be a determining factor to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, in the normal circumstances in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the owner of the property
by virtue of his title is presumed to be the landlord and the person in possession of the
premises is considered as tenant under the law or the tenancy may not be necessarily
created by a written instrument in exp ress terms rather may also be oral and implied.
The respondent having raised a specific plea that he was in possession of premises in his own right as J&K refugee has not been able to substantiate his assertion through any evidence, oral or documentary and we having examined the record with the
assistance of learned counsel for the parties, have found that two Courts subordinate to the High Court, after scanning the entire evidence in detail, have determined the
status of respondent as tenant of the premise s ".
8. Existence of relationship between the parties would imply acceptance of title of
landlord, as such, whenever a tenant denies that title and it is established that he is a tenant, he would forfeit his tenancy having become a trespasser and liable to be ejec ted forthwith.
Tenants have to stand on their own legs and are required to discharge onus of proof placed on them. In the instant case the appellant denied relationship of landlord and tenant, thus the burden of proof heavily shifted on him to prove his ti tle or locus standi for retaining the
premises in question with him more importantly in which capacity? Appellant though in his written reply had challenged ownership of the premises in question, but failed to prove the same through oral or documentary evi dence. If a tenant denies relationship of landlord and
tenant, tenancy is automatically terminated and he is liable to eviction.
The trial court, after assessment of the facts, circumstances and the evidence available
on record, has rightly accepted the a pplication; therefore, the impugned judgment dated
08.10.2018 passed in Eviction Application No. 03 of 2015 is just and proper being well reasoned. Besides, the learned counsel for the appellant/tenant has also failed to point out any illegality, irregular ity, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment warranting this
Court to interfere in it.
Thus, in view of what has been stated and discussed herein above, the appeal is,
accordingly, dismised
MQ/66/Bal. Appeal dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.