ABDUL QADIR MENGAL, J. --- This appeal under Section 15 of the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 has been filed against the judgment dated 30th September, 2011, passed by the Rent Controller/Qazi, Lasbellah at Uthal, whereby, the application under Section 13 of the Baluchistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents namely Muhammad Nawaz was allowed and the appellant was directed to vacate the premises of the plot Khasra No. 166, measuring 1240 1/2, situated at Mouza Misre, Tehsil Uthal.
The appellant being aggrieved of the said judgment has approached this Court with a prayer that the judgment. Dated 30th September, 2011, passed by the Rent Controller/Qazi, Lasbellah at Uthal, being illegal and improper is liable to be set aside and the application under Section 13 of the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, filed against the appellant may kindly be dismissed.
2. The facts of the instant appeal are that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Muhammad Nawaz filed an application against the appellant under Section 13 of the Baluchistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for ejectment with a prayer that the plot Khasra No. 166, measuring 1240 1/2, situated at Mouza Misre, Tehsil Uthal, was initially given to appellant/respondent on rental basis at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month, however, the appellant/respondent after some time not only denied to pay the rent amount, but at the same time claimed the ownership of the disputed plot, whereas, the respondent/applicant require the disputed plot for his own personal use.
3. The appellant/respondent disputed the claim of the applicant/respondent through filing rejoinder, stating that actually the disputed plot does not locate in Khasra No. 166, Mutation No. 203, but same exists in Khasra No. 172, which he has claimed as an owner. The respondent/applicant has no nexus or right over the claimed plot and his application is liable to be dismissed.
4. The learned Trial Court framed proper issues and then through the judgment dated 30th September, 2011, allowed the application by directing the appellant/respondent to handover the vacate possession of the disputed plot to the respondent/applicant within two months and further ordered that an amount of Rs. 2500/- per month, to be deposited and paid to the respondent/applicant, till handing over the plot. Hence this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Mughal, Advocate for the appellant, while Mr. Muhammad Usman Lasi, Advocate was heard for respondents. Mr. Abdul Aziz Khan Khilji, Additional Advocate General, ` directions of C.L.R. this Court also was asked to pursue the matter to save the interest of the Government, as prima facie, according to the pleadings of the appellant, the disputed Khasra lying in Khasra No. 172, which is part of the Government land or property holding by the B&R Department
6. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the property in question is lying in Khasra No. 172, which has no nexus with the respondent/applicant, as appellant possessing a land under Khasra No. 166, which is related to another place and not the disputed land or plot. Again during the course of proceedings, at the insistence of the appellant that this Court through the Local Commissioner ascertain whether the plot in question is in Khasra No. 166 or is in Khasra No. 172, which is in possession of the appellant/respondent and the respondent/applicant illegally claiming the same. The said request was allowed to ascertain as to whether any Government property has been occupied or otherwise. The Tehsildar concerned was directed to inspect the place, get all the relevant documents and ascertain that the property in question whether lying in Khasra No. 166 or in Khasra No. 172. The Tehsildar after inspecting the site and collecting all the relevant documents, submitted his report stating that the property in question actually lying in Khasra No. 166 and not in Khasra No. 172. Furthermore, the said plot initially belonged to one Loda Mal, who had sold it to one Sher Dil son of Abdul Ghafoor, vide Mutation No. 112 and whereafter, who also sold it to one Abdul Zahir son of Abdul Samad, vide Mutation No. 117. Again on 26th January, 1987, the respondent/applicant had bought it from Abdul Zahir vide Mutation No. 203, whereas, the appellant/respondent had no connection nor in any way in the record, his relationship has been shown in respect of the disputed property. After submitting the report by the Local Commissioner, the respondent side also filed a rejoinder and raised some objections respect of the report, however, it has been confirmed by the Tehsildar concerned that the interest of Provincial Government is not involved in property in question, as such, in view of the above, the parties were heard on merits about their respective contentions.
7. It was observed that the contention of the appellant having no substance in respect of the disputed plot . The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/applicant has produced evidence which fully shows that the disputed plot was taken into possession by the appellant/respondent from the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/applicant the evidence of the respondents/applicant almost has established the relationship between the parties as a landlord and tenant, as admittedly, in the present matter, the appellant/respondent has taken plea that he is the owner of the property, which is part of Khasra No. 172, but in this respect, no document or evidence has come on record to prove his contention. Again, on contrary, whatever evidence has come on record from the side of appellant, which itself shows that he is not the owner. Whereas, in the matters of rent where a title of ownership claimed by tenant does not prove, then, result automatically will be that he be directed to vacate the property in question being a bad paymaster, as he on that ground had refused to pay the monthly rent and furthermore, tried to deprive the owner from his property.
8. Thus in view of the above, adverting to the judgment of the Rent Controller/Qazi, Lasbellah at Uthal, it appears that the learned Rent Controller/Qazi Lasbellah at Uthal, rightly has appreciated the evidence and also has come to a proper conclusion, because, the evidence of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/applicants consisting upon Muhammad Basharat, Muhammad Hussain and Attaullah shows that applicant Muhammad Nawaz has fully established the ownership, by giving the disputed plot on hire to the appellant/respondent. On the other hand the evidence which has been brought by the appellant/respondent reflects that they all saying only that appellant /respondent is in possession two or three years back and carrying business there, however, none of the said witnesses had declared owner to the appellant/respondent.
Thus with the above discussed circumstances, the judgment dated 30th September, 2011, passed by the Rent Controller/Qazi, Lasbellah at Uthal, being legal, proper and having no defects, is maintained and the appeal filed by the appellant having no substance, as such, the same is dismissed, with no order as to cost.
FAO dismissed.