Pakistan Case Law← Search
1991 CLC 944

Ch. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others

Citation1991 CLC 944
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No,514 of 1988
Date1991-03-11
Judge(s)Irshad Hasan Khan
ResultPetition dismissed

' This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 23-11-1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed against the order dated 8- 2-1987 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore in respect of a house measuring approximately 3 marlas consisting of one storey with two rooms and a porch and boundary wall situated in Ihata Haji Muhammad Musa, Ghari Shahu, Lahore.

2. The ejectment application was resisted by respondent No,3 on the ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The learned Additional District Judge after re- appraisal of evidence on record, concurred with the finding of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller on this issue and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 23-11-1987.

2-A. It was held by the lower appellate authority that vide notifications Exhs.R1 to R4 issued by the Lahore Development Authority, the tenancy rights between respondent No,3 and the petitioner had come to an end. The petitioner had not so far challenged the acquisition of the land in dispute by the Lahore Development Authority and, therefore, has no locus standi to file the ejectment petition against respondent No,3, which was rightly dismissed.

3. When faced with this, Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Hasan Khan learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No,3 had been paying the rent to the petitioner before acquisition and therefore, he is estopped by his conduct to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly observed that there is no estoppel against the statute, in that, vide Exh.R4 the Lahore Development Authority stepped into the shoes of the original owner/landlord. Clearly the impugned judgments do not suffer from any flaw. The controversy raised herein is concluded by a concurrent finding of fact.

For educational and research use only β€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerΒ·PrivacyΒ·TermsΒ·Search