2018 Y L R 1240
[Balochistan]
Before Zaheer- ud-Din Kakar, J
SAIFULLAH ---Appellant
Versus
NIAMATULLAH and 2 others ---Respondents
F.A.O. No.1 of 2016, decided on 16th February, 2017. Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ---
----S. 13---Ejectment of tenant ---Bona fide personal need of landlord ---Denial of relationship
of landlord and tenant by the tenant ---Scope--- Landlords were owners of demised premises ---
Question of title had no relevance in the proceedings before the Rent Controller ---Point for
determination before the Rent Controller was the relationship of landlord and tenant over the
demised premises ---Tenant had no right to raise any objection with regard to ownership of
landlord---Where tenant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and such relationship stood proved, no other course was left for the Rent Controller but to order his eviction ---Statement of landlord on oath which was consistent with his averment made in the
eviction petition was neither shaken nor there was anything to contradict the same, such
statement would be sufficient for acceptance of ejectment application ---If landlord failed to get
the possession of demised premises within stipulated period or re -let it to some one else within
a period provided by law, tenant had right to recover the possession of said premises ---No
illegality, irregularity, infirmity or perversity was pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller ---Tenant was granted two months' time to vacate and han dover the demised
premises to the landlord---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Ghulam Samdani v. Abdul Hameed 1992 SCMR 1170; Muhammad Shoaib Alam and
others v. Muhammad Iqbal and others 2000 SCMR 903; 1996 SCMR 1178; 1980 SCMR 593;
PLD 1982 SC 218 and 2012 SCMR 854 rel.
Mushtaq Ahmed Anjum for Appellant.
Mumtaz Hussain Baqri and Sabra Islam for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 16th December, 2016.
JUDGMENT
ZAHEER -UD-DIN KAKAR, J. ---Appellant Saifullah has filed the instant appeal
against the order dated 15th December, 2015 "the impugned order" passed by the Senior Civil Judge -I/Rent Controller, Quetta, whereby the Eviction application filed by the respondents was
accepted and the appellant was directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the shop in question to the respondents within a period of thirty days.
2. Precisely stated facts of the present appeal are that the respondents/applicants filed an
eviction application against the appellant, wherein it was averred that hey are owners a nd
landlord of six shops and three flats, situated at Gurdat Singh Road, Quetta, which were rented out to the tenants on monthly rent basis. The espondent/appellant is tenant of shop bearing No. 5-1/2/19=21(4) on monthly rent of Rs.900/ -. The eviction appl ication was filed on the ground
of personal bona fide use for Shaukat Ali son of Naimatullah (respondent No.1). Rejoinder to the application was filed by the appellant/ respondent, raised legal objections and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
3. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the
following issues on 15.7.2014: --
ISSUES
i. Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?
ii. Whether the shop in quest ion is required in good faith for personal bona fide
use of son of applicant No.1 namely Shoukat Ali?
iii. Whether the applicants are entitled to the relief claimed for?
iv. Relief?
4. In support of their claim, the respondents/applicants produced Shaukat Ali as AW -1
and attorney for the appellants namely Noor Ali got recorded his own statement, whereas, the
appellant/respondent produced RW -1 Syed Hazrat Khan, RW -2 Syed Nek Muhammad and
lastly Hayatullah attorney for the appellant got recorded his own statement. The learned Rent
Controller, after conclusion of the case accepted the application by means of the order dated 15.12.2015, hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the respondents have not approached the
Rent Controller with clean hands and concealed the material facts; that the respondents (applicants) are neither owner/landlord of the shop in question nor the appellant is their tenant. He, lastly, submitted that the shop in question is not required to the respondents for personal bona fide use and occupation of Shaukat Ali.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the
submissions so raised and supported the impugned order, on the ground that the Rent
Controller, after proper appraisal of the record and evidence, has rightly passed the order of
ejectment, which does not call for any interference by this Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
Perusal of the record reflects that the appellant had denied the ownership of the respondents
and stated that the possession of shop in question was handed over to him by Noor -ul-Haq in
the year 1996 after receiving Rs.20,000, as advance payment. According t o the appellant that
Abdul Zahir is owner of the shop in Excise and Taxation record and he started collecting month
rent from him and after passage of some time he (Abdul Zahir) introduced Noor Ali and told him that he will collect the monthly rent of the shop in question on his behalf. As per appellant's statement, Noor Ali had received monthly rent of the shop in question from him till September,
2014. It is necessary to mention here that Noor Ali is son of respondent No.1 and attorney of
respondents. Per usal of the record further reflects that the appellant has failed to produce Abdul
Zahir and legal heirs of Noor -ul-Haq in support of his claim, therefore, an adverse inference
within the meaning of section 129(g) of the Qanun- e-Shahadat Order can validly be drawn
against him.
8. To establish their title, with permission of the trial Court, the respondents placed on
record mutation No.1094, Ward No.26, Urban- II, Tehsil City, District Quetta, which clearly
shows that they are owner of the shop in question. I t is pertinent to mention here that the
appellant also filed application for placing on record the said mutation which was allowed by the trial Court and the said mutation was made part of the record, meaning thereby that the appellant has also admitted th e said revenue record. Admittedly, the respondents/applicants are
landlord of the shop in question 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 determi nation would be the relationship of landlord and tenant over the disputed property,
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 a tenant. Furthermore, it is a settled principle of law that where the tenant denies relationship of landlord and tenant and such relationship stands proved, than no other course is left for the c ourt, but to order his eviction. In this regard,
guidance can be taken from the case titled as "Ghulam Samdani v. Abdul Hameed" (1992 SCMR 1170), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: --
"It is by now well- settled that if a tenant denies the rel ationship of landlord and tenant,
he is liable to eviction straight away without recording of evidence on the other allegations of default, damage to property and personal need."
9. So far as the plea of personal bona fide need of the respondents is concer ned, I have
carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. I have perused the order of the Rent Controller dated 15th December, 2015 and threshed out the entire evidence as led by the parties to
substantiate their respective claims. The respondents/ landlord, in my view adduced cogent, concrete and worthy of credence evidence to substantiate their version. Noor Ali, attorney for the respondents and AW -Shau kat Ali has explained their genuine, bona fide and personal need
in a simple, straightforward and convincing manner. They stood firm to the test of cross -
examination and nothing beneficial could be extracted in spite of numerous searching questions. It is well -settled by now that where the statement of landlord on oath was quite
consistent with his averment made in the ejectment applications, neither his statement was
shaken nor anything was brought in evidence to contradict the statement that would be
considered sufficient for acceptance of the ejectment application. In this regard, I am fortified
by the dictum laid down in case titled "Muhammad Shoaib Alam and others v. Muhammad Iqbal and others" (2000 SCMR 903), wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under: -
-
"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
requirement of landlord was bona fide."
10. A similar proposition was discussed in case titled "Akhtar Qureshi v. Nisar Ahmed
(2000 SCMR 1292) wherein it was held that "statement of landlady on oath was quite consistent with her averments made in the ejectment application, neither her statement was shaken nor anything wa s brought in evidence to contradict the said statement -Rent Controller, in
circumstances, was fully justified in accepting the evidence of the landlady and ordering the eviction of the tenant." This point also finds support from cases reported in 1996 SCMR 1178
+ 1980 SCMR 593 + PLD 1982 SC 218 and 2012 SCMR 854. Even otherwise, the Ordinance has provided protection to a tenant under section 13 subsection (4), therefore, if the respondents failed to get the possession of the shop in the stipulated period or after getting the possession,
re-let it to some else within a period provided by law, the appellant has a right to recover the
possession of the shop.
11. The trial Court, after assessment of the facts, circumstances and the evidence available
on record, has rightly accepted the application; therefore, the impugned order dated 15th
December 2015 is just and proper being well reasoning. Besides, the learned counsel for the
appellant has also failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, infirmity or per versity in the
impugned order warranting this Court to interfere in it.
12. Thus, in view of what has been stated and discussed herein above, the appeal is,
accordingly, dismissed. However, enabling the appellant, to shift his articles from the shop in question to some other premises, he is granted two months time from today to vacate and
handover the vacant possession to the respondent. There is no order as to costs.
ZC/24/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.