 |
| 2025 clc 1810 |
رجسٹرڈ سیل ڈیڈ رکھنے والے شخص کو برتری — کرایہ داری کا تعلق ثابت نہ ہونے پر درخواست خارج
مختصر کہانی
لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ:
نتیجہ
Must read judgement.
2025 CLC 1810
[Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]
Before Jawad Hassan, J
IZZAT KHAN ---Petitioner
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others ---Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3978 of 2024, heard on 10th February, 2025.
(a) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)---
Ss. 15 & 16-Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, denial of-Both the parties claiming ownership of subject property---Record revealed that the dispute between the parties was with regard to purchase of one marla land yet it was not disputed by the parties that one marla land was purchased h was purchased by them from original owner through two different documents on the basis of which the parties claimed themselves to be the owners respectively-A registered sale deed, with accurate metes and bounds, when executed with due compliance of law, proper stamp duty, payment and valid title transfer from a legally competent seller, confers a valid and enforceable right upon the purchaser-Upon considering the evidence, the respondent acquired a better title through a duly executed registered sale deed, free from legal infirmities and the petitioner's claim, hased on a weak and legally flawed mutation, did not override the respondent's valid ownership rights---Petitioner failed to bring on record any tangible override evidence substantiating the non-existence ice of of relationship rel of landlord and tenant between the the parties-Rent ties-Rent Tribunal established under S. 16 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 ('the Act 2009'), can only exercise the jurisdiction with regard to rented premises if there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties--Both the judgments were well-reasoned having been passed after taking into consideration every aspect of the case-Constitutional petition, being meritless, was dismissed, in circumstances.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan-
Art. 199-Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009), 5. 15-Eviction of tenant-Concurrent findings--Invoking constitutional jurisdiction of tion of High Court-Scope-The question relating to existence of rela relationship of landlord and d and tenant inter se parties was undoubtedly a question of fact which had been concurrently resolved by both the courts below in favour of respondent---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be resorted merely on the ground that from the available material some other view is possible--There are concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below, which apparently did not suffer from any legal infirmity-High Court is also not ordinarily inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, particularly when the they are not shown to be contrary to record or arbitrary or whimsical-In the present case, apart from the bald assertions, no specific instance was brought to the notice of the Court that might be regarded as a case of misreading or non-reading of material evidence, having direct and decisive bearing on the issues-Both the Courts exercised the jurisdiction vested in them, without violating any principles governing the assessment and appraisal of evidence-Both the judgments were well-reasoned having been passed after taking into consideration every aspect of the case-Constitutional petition, being meritless, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Mian Umar Ikram-ul-Haque v. Dr. Shahida Hasnain and another 2016 SCMR 2186 and Noor-un-Nisa and others v. United Bank Limited through Authorized Officers and 2 others PLD 2021 Lah. 90 ref.
Hassan Raza Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Shahid Latif Hashmi for Respondent No. 1.