PLJ 2005
Present: Sayed Zahid Hussain, J.
INSHALLAH KHAN and 10 others--Petitioners
versus
SIR BOLAND KHAN and 3 others--Respondents
W.P. No. 13973 of 2003, heard on 25.5.2004.
Constitution of
----Art. 199--Jurisdiction sphere, bounds and limitations of jurisdiction--Not equivalent to the appellant jurisdiction of the Court--Two different remedies with different scope, extent and contents--Resolution of disputed questions of fact does not fall within the domain of jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 199 of Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and that appreciation and re-appraisal of evidence is also not undertaken by the Court in writ jurisdiction--The finding recorded by Rent Controller and the appellant authority after appraising the evidence was not open to scrutiny and reversal in Constitutional jurisdiction and appropriate course should left an opportunity open for the landlord to go and establish the claim in Courts of plenary jurisdiction--Dispute relating to title of the property could not be decided in rent proceeding or in appeal emanating therefrom--Petition dismissed with an option open for petitioner to approach the Civil Courts for resolution of dispute.
[Pp. 1038 & 1039] A, B, C & D
1984 SCMR 317; 1983 SCMR 1064; 2000 SCMR 1525 and 1999 MLD 1607.
Mr. Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti, Advocate for Petitioners.
M/s. S.M. Masood and Moiz Tariq, Advocate for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
Date of hearing : 25.5.2004.
Judgment
An ejectment petition was instituted by the petitioners
against the respondents qua Property No. 2400 that the same had been
transferred to their predecessor-in-interest and P.T.D. had been issued on
22.4.1973. The ejectment petition was filed on 2.9.1996. In their reply filed
by the respondents, relationship of landlord and tenant was denied which gave
rise to Issue No. 1. Evidence was led by the parties. On 11.10.2000 the learned
Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition recording finding in favour of
the petitioners. Appeal preferred by the respondents thereagainst, however,
succeeded and the finding was reversed by the learned Additional District
Judge. Daska vide his judgment dated 9.7.2003 with a direction to the petitioners
to establish title before the
2. Lengthy arguments have been addressed in this matter in view of the bulk of the material on the record.
3. It is high time to be conscious of jurisdictional sphere, bounds and limitations of writ jurisdiction. It cannot be equated with the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. There is a marked difference in the scope, extent and content of the two remedies. Resolution of disputed questions of fact does not fall within the domain of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and that appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence is also not undertaken by this Court in writ jurisdiction. I have been taken through the evidence due to variant approach of the lower Courts in order to satisfy as to whether there was any material misreading or non-reading of the evidence or illegality or infirmity with the approach adopted by the learned. Additional District Judge in the matter. It was the case of the petitioners that Muhammad Ibrahim Abid, their predecessor-in-interest, had purchased Property No. 2400 in open auction from the settlement department for which P.T.D. was issued on 22.4.1973. The ejectment petition was, however, filed against the respondents in the year 1996. According to the petitioner, the respondents were occupying the said property. This assertion of the petitioners was disputed by the respondents and the plea of the petitioners was controverted that the property occupied by them was not No. 2400 and that the site-plan brought on record by the petitioners was also incorrect. It was, thus, that Issue No. 1 as to:
"whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties"
was framed by the Rent Controller with the onus on the
petitioners to prove the same. As mentioned above, an attempt was made by the
petitioners by producing bulky evidence to prove the issue, but the same was
found unsatisfactory by the appellate Court who reversed the finding of the
learned Rent Controller. In the context of the controversy it was the burden of
the petitioners to prove that what was purchased in auction by their
predecessor-in-interest and was transferred by the settlement department was
the property in occupation of the respondents. Thus, a serious dispute as to
title and the identity of the property had cropped up, the resolution whereof
as essential before an ejectment order could be passed against the respondents.
In Nisar Ahmad and others v. District Judge, Muzaffargarh and others (1984 SCMR
317) it was observed with reference to Rehmat Ullah v. Ali Muhammad and another
(1983 SCMR 1064) that the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and
the appellate authority after appraising the evidence was not open to scrutiny
and reversal in Constitutional jurisdiction and that the appropriate course
would have been to leave an opportunity open for the landlord to go and
establish his claim in Courts of plenary jurisdiction. Similar was the approach
adopted in Junaid Rasheed and others v. Sultan Muhammad and others (2000 SCMR
1525) in which controversy of almost identical nature (identification of
property) had arisen and it was observed that dispute relating to title of the
property could not be decided in rent proceedings or in appeals emanating
therefrom. Similar was the view taken by this Court in Khalid Mahmud and 6
others v. Maqbul Mahmood Bajwa, Additional District Judge,
The petition is, thus, dismissed with an option open for
the petitioners to approach the
(N.T.) Petition dismissed.