2024 C L C 1776
[Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]
Before Mirza Viqas Rauf, J
GHULAM DASTGIR SIDDIQUI and another---Appellants
Versus
Mst. ELIZBETH and another----Respondents
F.A.O. No.49 of 2017, heard on 3rd June, 2024.
(a) Cantonments Rent Restrictions Act (XI of 1963)---
----S. 17---Eviction of tenant---Monthly rent, rate of---Divergent stances of the parties---Rent Controller rejected eviction of the tenants sought by the ejectment petitioners / landlords---Rate of monthly rent was claimed by the appellants/landlords as Rs.6000/-, which was controverted by the respondents/tenants, while submitting their written reply wherein they asserted that in fact the rate of rent was Rs.1,200/- per month and they had already paid all the due rent---Rent Controller decided issue relating to the rate of rent and held that the rate of rent was Rs.1,200/- per month---Examining the evidence produced by both the sides to said effect revealed no material whatsoever to differ with the findings of the Rent Controller on rate of monthly rent---Appeal, filed by the landlords , was disposed of.
(b) Cantonments Rent Restrictions Act (XI of 1963 )---
----S. 17---Eviction of tenant---Personal bona fide need of landlord---Scope---Rent Controller dismissed ejectment petition filed by the landlords for eviction of tenant from rented premises (house)---Validity---Record revealed that one of the appellants / landlords, while himself deposing as witness, during his cross examination, admitted that previously the appellants filed various ejectment petitions against their tenants on (the same ground) of personal bona fide need and obtained possession in terms of the eviction order---Though it is prerogative of the landlord to choose any of his property which in his estimation would meet his requirements but at the same time, ground of personal bona fide need cannot be made basis for eviction of the tenant when it is established on the record that the landlord has already got vacated other properties from his tenant(s) on the same ground in the near past---It was also established on the record that appellants / landlords had shifted their residence just before filing of ejectment petition and they did not plead that the accommodation where they were residing was insufficient for their need---Thus, the appellants failed to prove that the rented promises (house) was required for their personal bono-fide need---Appeal, filed by the landlords, was disposed of.
(c) Cantonments Rent Restrictions Act (XI of 1963)---
----S. 17---Eviction of tenant---Default in payment of rent---Onus to prove---Rent Controller dismissed ejectment petition filed by the appellants / landlords---Validity---One of the appellants / landlords ,while appearing as a witness, categorically asserted that the respondents / tenants had defaulted in payment of rent w.e.f. January, 2013---Though said assertion was refuted by the respondents / tenants in their reply but they had failed in discharging the onus---When the landlord seeks eviction of his tenant(s) on the ground of default in payment of rent, he has to only assert the factum of default supported by affidavit and the onus then would shift upon the tenant(s) to prove that he/they has/have not defaulted in payment of rent---Rent Controller founded his conclusion by wrongly relying upon evidence produced by the respondents / tenants---Thus, the appellants / landlords remained successful in proving that the respondents / tenants committed default in payment of rent---High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller ; consequently , the ejectment petition stood accepted and the respondents / tenants were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the rented-premises (house) to the appellants / landlord within thirty (30) days---Appeal , filed by the landlords, was allowed.
(d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Arts.70 & 89---Cantonments Rent Restrictions Act (XI of 1963),
S.17---Eviction proceedings---Qanun-e-Shahadat Order ( 10 of 1984), applicability of---Scope---Documentary evidence, relevancy / admissibility of---Receipt of monthly rent, tendering of---Scope---Receipt of rent was exhibited / brought on record through the statement of counsel of the tenants---Rent Controller , while relying on said exhibited receipt dismissed ejectment petition filed by the appellants / landlords---Validity---Record revealed that in order to rebut the stance (default in payment of rent ) of the appellants/ landlords , one of the respondents/tenants appeared as sole witness in support thereof; in addition, a rent receipt was made part of record by exhibiting the same---Adverting to the validity and authenticity of exhibited rent-receipt, it was noticed that same was brought on record through the statement of counsel and it was heavily relied by the Rent Controller, while deciding the issue against the appellants / landlords---For true import of the relevant provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 dealing with the relevancy and admissibility of the documentary evidence, though rigors of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, cannot be pressed into service with full force in the proceedings before the Rent Controller but cardinal principles regulating the procedure for recording of evidence cannot be kept aside totally---Rent Controller founded his conclusion exclusively relying upon rent receipt-in-question which was not admissible at all and was only an anecdotal piece of evidence---Thus, the appellants / landlords remained successful in proving that the respondents / tenants committed default in payment of rent---High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller ; consequently , the ejectment petition stood accepted, and the respondents / tenants were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the rented-premises (house) to the appellants / landlord within thirty (30) days---Appeal, filed by the landlords, was allowed.
Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and others PLD 2021 SC 715; Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Misri Khan PLD 2020 SC 749 and National Command Authority through D.G. SPD, Rawalpindi and others v. Zahoor Azam and others 2024 CLC 1 ref.
Muhammad Abdul Muqeet Sh. for Appellants.
Sh. Usman Ullah Waleem for Respondent No.1.
Nemo for Respondent No.2.
Comments
Post a Comment