MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- These petitions are directed against the judgments dated 22.7.2002 passed by learned Ilird Additional District Judge, Karachi Central in First Rent Appeals Nos.
1/2002 to 14/2002, filed by the petitioners, whereby the appeals were dismissed and the judgments passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi Central, in Rent Applications Nos. 949/93 to 962/93, were upheld.
2. Since all the above petitions constitute similar facts and circumstances, those are being disposed of by this single order.
3. Brief facts giving rise to these petitions are that the applicant/petitioner is a trust claiming to be landlord of the entire property known as Masjid-e'Shohadda Trust which includes the shops.
According to the petitioner, the respondents were tenants in the shops situated on the said property. It was pleaded that since the tenants failed to pay rent from October, 1992 despite repeated demands, they rendered themselves liable to be ejected. Secondly, it was pleaded that the property was required for the bona fide use as the mosque had to be extended.
4. In the Written Statement the tenants/respondents took the common plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant/petitioner and the tenants/respondents.
There was a dispute with regard to constitution of the trust. Some of the tenants/respondents themselves claimed to be the trustees of the said trust.
5. Both the parties adduced evidence before the Rent Controller. Learned Rent Controller on appraisal of the evidence arrived at the conclusion that the relationship between the parties as tenant and landlord did not exist. The points with regard to the commission of deliberate default as well as personal requirement were also not proved. Resultantly the ejectment applications were dismissed.
6. First Rent Appeals filed by the petitioners also met with the same fate as the judgments passed by the learned Rent Controller were maintained. Hence these petitions.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length at Katcha Peshi stage.
8. It was contended that the judgments passed by the two Courts below were contrary to evidence.
The cross-examination of the respondents/tenants were not discussed. Respondent/tenant Naseeruddin in one of the petition claimed to be trustee as well as the tenant which was against he logic. On the premises of above arguments it was urged that the orders passed by the two forums below were illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction as such liable to be struck down.
9. However, during arguments learned counsel was at great pains and unable to find his feet as he had hardly any explanation to offer when it was pointed out to him that the petitioner's witness himself admitted in the cross-examination that there was no relationship between the present petitioner/applicant and tilt respondents/tenants.
10. Anyhow, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel have been considered and the judgments passed by two Courts below have been thoroughly scrutinized.
1 1. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding discussion on cross- examination of the respondents is absolutely untenable. The law requires the landlord to prove his case for ejectment of tenant. Unless the burden is adequately discharged by the landlord, the tenant would not be required to disprove the same. Making any attempt to explore the weaknesses in the evidence of the respondents for the purpose of curing and repairing the self-inflicted obliteration caused by the petition to his case was obscurely enigmatic and most endangering.
Learned counsel was, this, sadly mistaken. Quite incidentally it is evident, in the instant case that the Management of Trust allegedly created by the petitioner, is in dispute as Naseeruddin claims to be the Managing Trustee and such matter is sub-judice.
12. Prima facie it appears that the Trust was created for accomplishment of the objects beyond those described in the deed of declaration.
13. Adverting to the evidence on record it appears appropriate to reproduce hereunder the portion of cross-examination of the applicant/petitioner incorporated in the judgment of the Appellate Court: "It is fact that all the tenants have never paid rent to applicant Trust. It is fact that Naseeruddin is also a tenant. It is fact that Naseeruddin, the- tenant is President of Trust has filed a Civil Suit No. 128/1993, before the Court having jurisdiction. It is not in my knowledge that the tenants have paid the rent to the said Trust/Naseeruddin. It is fact that there is no relationship between the present applicant and the tenants."
13. On the basis of the above evidence learned Appellate Court reached the. Following conclusion:- "From the above evidence of the Managing Trustee of the appellant/applicant, it is clear that the tenant has never paid rent to the appellant/applicant. In such circumstances when admittedly, the appellant/applicant has not collected rent from the tenant, it cannot be said that relationship exists between the parties. Even, entitlement of the appellant/applicant to collect the rent is subject- matter of the suit filed by the other Trust. Even, the Managing Trustee of the appellant/applicant has admitted as is evident from the piece of evidence reproduced above that there exists no relations of landlord and tenant, in view of this discussion, the learned Rent Controller, has rightly dismissed the ejectment application holding that there does not exists relationship as landlord and tenant between the parties."
14. Examination of the above findings and evaluation of the evidence leaves no room to doubt the legality and validity of the judgments impugned in these petitions.
15. Needless to mention that Constitutional jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction which is meant to foster justice and to remedy the wrong but could not be allowed to be invoked in routine course either as an additional remedy or to disturb the findings of fact, correctly recorded by the forums below.
16. Since the judgments passed by the forums below do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or infirmity, no interference is warranted.
17. Consequently, these petitions being without merit are dismissed in limine alongwith all the listed applications.