1 C.R. No. 525-D of 2003 2 C.R. No. 588-D of 2003 3 C.R. No. 632-D of 2003 4 C.R. No. 633-D of 2003 5 C.R. No. 634-D of 2003 6 C.R. No.635-D; of 2003 7 C.R. No. 652-D of 2003 8 C.R. No. 653-D of 2003 9 C.R. No. 654-D of 2003JUDGMENT Through this single order, I propose to dispose the following Civil Revisions as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases:-- 10 C.R. No. 655-D of 2003 11 C.R. No. 656-D of 2003 12 C. R. No. 657-D of 2003 13 C.R. No. 658-D of 2003 14 C. R. No: 659-D of 2003 15 C.R. No. 660-D of 2003 16 C.R. No. 661-D of 2003 17 C.R. No. 662-D of 2003 18 C. R. No. 663-D of 2003 19 C.R. No. 664-D of 2003 20C. R. No. 665-D of 2003 21C.R. No. 666-D of 2003 22C. R. No. 667-D of 2003 23C.R. No. 668-D of 2003
2. Brief facts of all these cases are that the petitioners are occupying various quarters situated in Neeli Cotton Factory, Karkhana Road, Burewala. The respondents moved eviction applications against the petitioners before the learned Rent Controller which were allowed vide order dated 28-2-1990. Petitioner's appeals failed before the learned District Judge on 3-4-1994. Their writ petitions before this Court also failed vide order dated 24-4-1999. The said order has attained finality, as it was not further challenged.
3. The respondents thereafter filed suits against the present petitioners for the recovery of rent mentioned each suit separately, from April, 1991 to April, 1994 and onward till possession is delivered.
4. The suits were contested by the present petitioners. Necessary issues were framed by the learned trial Court. The respondents led their evidence. However, the petitioners could not adduce any evidence in support of their defence. In the followig cases, the learned Rent Controller vide judgment and decree dated 11-10-2000 dismissed these suits filed by the respondents (hereinafter to be called as 1st set of cases):--
(i) C.R. No. 525-D of 2003 (ii)C. R. No. 632-D of 2003 (iii)C. R. No. 633-D of 2003
(iv) C. R. No. 652-D of 2003
(v) C.R. Nor. 668-D of 2003 ' Appeals filed by the respondents succeeded before the learned ADJ vide judgment and decree dated 28-2-2003.
5. While in the other cases (herinafter to be contends 2 set of cases) the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 7-10-200 decreed all the cases and in these cases petitioners preferred appeals which were dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 1-3-2003. Now the petitioners have come up in these Civil Revisions against all these judgments and decrees.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in the 1st set of cases of respondents only produced Rana Arshad. Javed as P.W.-1 in support of their cases who did not even mention in his statement the amount of rent claimed by the respondents,. Therefore, no decree could have been passed in favour of the respondents on basis of such evidence.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents tried his level best to support the decree passed by the learned Appellate Court.
8. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The respondent in his suit has claimed specific amount of rent at a particular rate with certain amount of increase annually. The minimum requirement for the plaintiff was at least to state the amount of rent and the rate of rent and the reasons for enhancement of amount of rent to be stated by him at least in his own statement which was not done by P.W.-1 Rana Arshad Javed who is one of the plaintiffs-respondents. Apart from this statement there is no other evidence to support the case of the plaintiff. Keeping in view this state of evidence the suits filed by the respondents could not have been decreed. This aspect of the matter probably could not be attended by the learned Appellate Court. Resultantly Civil Revisions in the 1st set of cases are allowed and the judgment and decrees passed by the learned Appellate Court on 28-2-2003 are set-aside. No order as to costs.
10. So far as cases falling in the second set are concerned, only one witness namely Bashir Ahmad had appeared on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent who is Special Attorney. He had no doubt claimed an amount of rent at the rate of Rs.300 per month with 10% increase but apart from this statement there is no other evidence from the plaintiff/respondent side to show as to how this amount of rent was assessed. In his cross-examination, he- has admitted that this amount has been assessed by him on his own. This self-serving statement could not establish the, fact of fair rent for a particular premises. At least the respondent should have produced such quality of evidence, which is highlighted in section 4 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance for the determination of the fair rent. In the absence -of such evidence, the suits filed by the respondent falling in the second set as well could not have been decreed. The learned Appellate Court has given much stress to the fact that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties by operation of law, therefore the petitioners are liable to pay the amount claimed by the respondent.
Unfortunately, the lower Courts have lost sight of the fact that the dispute in the instant case was not relating to the relationship of the parties inter se. The claim of the respondent was with respect to a specific amount of rent on the basis of said relationship which, undisputedly does exist keeping in view the judgments passed in the rent cases. Since the evidence required to determine the fixation of rent or fair rent is not available on the record therefore the suits could not have been decreed.
11. Resultantly Civil Revisions falling under second set are also allowed and judgment and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are set aside. No order as to costs.