Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2009 SCMR 1077

ABBAS ALI KHAN vs Mst. FARHAT IQBAL and 2 others

Citation2009 SCMR 1077
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.C.P.L.A. No,1866-L of 2008
Date2009-02-12
Judge(s)Zia Pervez, Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan
ResultPetition dismissed

' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Abbas Ali Khan, an ejected tenant, seeks leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 6-11-2008 of Lahore High Court, whereby, his writ petition was dismissed, maintaining the ejectment order, dated -7-2008, passed by the Appellate Court.

2. Mst Farhat Iqbal brought a petition against Abbas Ali Khan, seeking his ejectment from Property No,S-52-R of 1989, Nisbat Road, Lahore on grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal need. The petition was contested by the petitioner, denying the required relationship, on the ground that he was an owner on the basis of an agreement to sell executed by Mst. Farhat Iqbal after having received a sum of Rs,3,00,000 as earnest money.

3. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition but, in appeal, First Appellate Court ordered ejectment against which the writ petition also failed.

4. A detailed perusal of record would indicate that the learned First Appellate Court had thoroughly examined, discussed and discerned the evidence. It had rightly arrived the conclusion it arrived at.

In view of the evidence on record, the learned High Court was perfectly right in upholding the view of the Appellate Court.

5. In pleadings of the parties, the petitioner has clearly admitted the title of the landlady as alleged in para.No,1 of the petition. He also admitted that he obtained possession from the respondent lady, who also has tenants in numerous adjacent properties. The stance, concerning agreement of sale, taken by the petitioner, is altogether fake because an agreement to sell does not confer title and a tenant on the basis of such agreement is not entitled to deny the relationship in question. Owing to this legal aspect alone, the stance taken by the petitioner being mala fide, he was liable to straightaway ejectment.

6. The intriguing aspect of the case is that the petitioner has not filed any copy of agreement of sale with the instant petition, during cross-examination, he categorically admitted that he has lost the original agreement. Any such agreement has not seen the light of the day. The entire litigation of the petitioner is based on mala fides.

7. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

Cited by 5 cases

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch