2012 Y L R 148
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, J
SHAH MIR and 6 others ---Appellants
versus
GHULAM HUSSAIN---Respondent
F.A.O. No.74 of 2009, decided on 28th September, 2011. (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ---
----Ss. 13 & 13- A---Ejectment petition ---Bona fide personal need of landlord and default in
payment of rent by tenant ---Tenant's plea that landlord had not issued notice regarding trans fer of
ownernship of demised premises in his favour; that transfer of premises in favour of landlord was fraudulent; and that landlord did not require demised premises for his personal use and occupation---Proof ---Evidence on record showed that landlord al ongwith his brothers and five
grown- up children was residing in a joint house, which did not commensurate with his needs ---
Tenant had failed to shatter veracity of statement of landlord that he was not in need of demised premises for his personal use and occupation ---Even if such notice was not proved, then filing of
ejectment petition would amount to such notice making tenant liable to pay rent from date landlord became owner of demised premises ---Tenant had admittedly not paid rent after transfer
of owner ship in favour of landlord, thus, had committed default in its payment ---Previous owner
of premises had failed to become party in ejectment proceedings, thus, tenant had sufficient notice regarding sale of premises to landlord ---Denial of relationship of l andlord and tenant and
non-payment of rent even after such notice was sufficient for ordering eviction of tenant without
recording any further evidence ---In case of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant, once
such relationship stood proved, then no other course would be left for Rent Controller except to
order eviction of tenant ---Ejectment petition was accepted in circumstances.
Messrs F.K. Irani and Co. v. Begum Feroze 1996 SCMR 1178 and 1992 SCMR 1170 rel
(b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restri ction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ---
----Ss. 13 & 13- A---Ejectment petition ---Default in payment of rent ---Non -issuance of notice to
tenant by landlord after becoming owner of demised premises ---Effect ---Filing of ejectment
petition would amount to such noti ce and tenant would become liable to pay rent from date
landlord became owner of demised premises ---Illustration.
(c) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ---
----S. 13---Ejectment petition ---Default in payment of rent by tenant, ground of ---Tenant's denial
of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties ---Effect ---Such relationship once proved,
then no other course would be left for Rent Controller except to order eviction of tenant.
1992 SCMR 1170 rel
(d) West Pakis tan Urban Rent Rest -riction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ---
----S. 13---Ejectment petition regarding joint property by one of its co- owners ---Maintainability -
--Question of title would have no relevancy in proceedings before Rent Controller as pivotal point requiring determination of relationship of landlord and tenant ---Tenant would have
absolutely no right to raise any objection regarding ownership as same would have no substantial
effect on factum of his tenancy and his status would remain as tenant ---Such pe tition could be
moved by one landlord alone for being co- owner with -out obtaining permission in writing
from his co -landlords/co- owners --- Principles.
Nek Muhammad v. Muhammad Shafi 1983 SCMR 180; Ghulam Rasool v. Bakhtawar 1981
SCMR 193 and Anwar Khan v. Abdul Manaf 2004 SCMR 126 rel.
Miss Syeda Tehmina for Appellant
Mian Badar Munir for Respondent
Date of hearing; 16th April, 2011 ORDER MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J. ---Through this appeal filed under section 15 of
the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 ('the Ordinance'), the appellants impugn their ejectment from katcha houses situated/ constructed on plot bearing Khasra Nos.484 and 487, Khewat No.145, Khatooni No.205, measuring 4500 sq.ft., K asi Road, Quetta, ordered
by Civil Judge -I-cum-Rent Control -ler, Quetta, by his order dated 25 -7-2009.
2. Facts, necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are that in the year 1965, the previous
owner of the disputed houses rented it out to the appellants. It is in the year 1993 that respondent purchased the houses in question, whereafter he gave a notice of change of ownership to the appel -lants under section 13- A of the Ordinance. Subsequently, the respondent on 17- 12-2005
filed an ejectment petition u nder section 13 of the Ordinance against the appellants, on the
grounds that they had wilfully defaulted in the payment of monthly rent from 1993 till filing of eviction application and that tenanted premises were genuinely needed by the respondent for his
personal use and occupation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the respondent has not approached
the Rent Controller with clean hands and concealed the material facts. He is not owner/landlord of the property in question and mutat ed the same on his name through fraud and
misrepresentation of facts. It is also contended that the respon- dent was not legally authorized to
institute eviction application being not the sole owner/landlord of the disputed property. He has
not executed any Iqrar Nama with the appellants and managed the same through fraud and
forgery, which is, otherwise, not admissible in evidence being unregistered. He lastly contended that neither any notice regarding the change of ownership was issued to the appellants, nor the property in question is required to the respondents for his personal bona fide use and occupation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, has vehemently opposed the
contentions so raised and supported the order impugned herein, on the grounds that the Rent
Controller, after proper appraisal of record and evidence, has rightly made the order of
ejectment, which does not call for any interference by this Court.
5. So far as the personal requirement of the respondent is concerned, admittedly, he is
residing with his other brothers and five grown -up children in a joint house, which does not
commensurate with his needs, therefore, the rented premises/ houses are required by him for his
personal use and occupation. As he has no other house to reside in, as such, it is proved that the
respondent required the property for his personal use. The respondent appeared before the Rent Controller and also produced Kaleemullah (AW -1), Badoor Khan (AW -2) and Shahid Akhtar
(AW -3) in support of hi s claim of ownership and bona fide need, whereas the appellants have
failed to shatter the veracity of statement of landlord that he is not in need of the property in question. In the case of Messrs F.K. Irani and Co. v. Begum Feroze reported in 1996 SCMR 1178, it has been held that: --
"Statement of landlord on oath, if consistent with the application for ejectment and not shaken in cross -examination or disproved in rebuttal is sufficient to prove that require -ment of landlord is
bona fide."
6. Revertin g to the contention of learned counsel for the appellant regarding notice under
section 13- A of the Ordinance, it may be added that even if notice under section 13- A of the
Ordinance was not proved to be issued, still filing of eviction application would a mount to notice
under section 13- A of the Ordinance and the appellants were under legal obligation to have made
payment of the rent from the date, the respondent became the landlord/ owner of the houses in
dispute, but the appellants have admitted that they have not paid the rent to the respondent
after transfer of the houses in dispute. The appellants had admitted default in payment of the rent and the Rent Controller has fallen in error while deciding issue No.2 in negative. 7. There is yet another piece of evidence, which is the admission of the appellants that the
property in question has been mutated by the respondent on his name through fraud and misrepresentation and in this regard an application under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. was made by the wife of previous owner, viz., Khan Bibi alias Wadairi, which was dismissed up to this
Court, meaning thereby the appellants had sufficient notice that the houses in question were sold to respondent and that he was their landlord. Such being the case, the conduct of the appellants being contumacious by denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and their denial of their having paid the rent to respondent even after such notice was sufficient for ordering their ejectment without recordi ng any further evidence. It is a settled principle of law
that where the tenant denies relationship of landlord and tenant and such relationship stands proved, then no other course is left for the Court, but to order his eviction. I am fortified from the judgment reported in 1992 SCMR 1170, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if
there is contumacious denial of relationship, the tenant is liable to be evicted straightaway without recording evidence on the other grounds, such as, default, damage t o property or
personal need.
8. Similarly, the contention of the appellants counsel, that the respondent being not the sole
owner in view of mutation entry Exh.P/1 had no locus standi to institute the eviction application,
is also devoid of force, becaus e eviction application can be moved by one landlord and it is not
essential for him to obtain a permission in writing from his co -landlord/co- owners, as he has
locus standi to file eviction application alone being co- owner. Admittedly, the respondent is one
of the landlord and it is worth- mentioning here that the question of title has no relevancy in the
proceedings before the Rent Controller, as the pivotal point needs determination would be the relationship of landlord and tenant, which would be the only determining factor, because a tenant has absolutely no right to raise any objection regarding the ownership, as it would have no substantial effect on the factum of his tenancy and his status would remain as tenant. If any authority is required, reference can be made to the case titled as Nek Muhammad v. Muhammad Shafi reported in 1983 SCMR 180, Ghulam Rasool v. Bakhtawar reported in 1981 SCMR 193 and Anwar Khan v. Abdul Manaf reported in 2004 SCMR 126.
From what has been discussed hereinabove, no ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. S.A.K./123/Q 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.