Muhammad Nazeer (Deceased) through LRs Vs Master Naveed etc

I

v ruDGMENTSHEET PESHA\ryAR HIGH COURT PESTIAWAR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P No.l974l2006

Muhammad Nazeer (Deceased) LRs Vs. Master Naveed & others

Date of hearing: 29.07.2025.

Mr M T boners

Mr. Abdul Samad Khan Advocate for res nondent N rl-

.ITJDGMENT

MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR. I: - Thro ugh this common judgement, I propose to decide the instant Writ Petition and connected W.P No.l968/2 006 titled "Muhammad Nazeer (Deceased) throuEh LRs Vs. Muhammad Saeed & others" and W.P No.2049/2N6 titled "Muhammad Nazeer (Deceased) throush LRs Vs. Muhammad Iaved & others" as an identical question of law and lhct is involvcd in all thcsc petitions.

2.1'he chequered history ol'the litigation is ttrat Muharnmad Nazeer the predecessor-in-interest of thc petitioners filed three ejectrnent petitions bearing No.6l/RC on 25.11.1997 for recovery of possession o[ the shop bearing No.l373 situated inside Hashtnagri Gate, Peshawar City, he has filed ejectment application No.57A{C on 28.11.1997 against Muhammad Saeed the respondent of connected petition for recovery of possession of shop (as described in heading of the application) and another ejectment petition bearing No.58iRC filed on 25.11.1997 against Muharnmad.Javed fbr shop No.1373 opposite to Rahirn Bakhsh Saria inside Hashtnagri Gate Peshawar City with the plea th;rt the initially Qamar Din was the owner of property who was survived by MsL Maqbool Begum, Malik Muhammad Ashiq & Mr. Abdul Hakim. Mst. Maqbool Begum had a son and daughter i.e., Mst. Behrawar Sultana (daughter) & Sher Muhammad (son). petitioner No.l and predecessor-in-intere st ol' the pctitioners No.2 to 4 Kareem Bakhsh was the landlord of the rrcnted premises, the

possession whereol' were handed over to respondents o[ the respective applications @ Rs.500/- per shop, Kareem Bakhsh had died leaving behind petitioners No.2 to 4 (their brothers and sisters). It was alleged that the respondents have not paid the rent w.e.l'May 1995 till October 1997 despite repeared direcrions. Irwas further averred that thc conditions of *rc shops are dilapi<lated and requires reconstruction, however, the possession ol' the shop was required to them fior personal need. The applications were resisted with an outright denial of the existence o[the relationship of tenant and landlord. The respondens in their written replies averred that Sher Muhamma<l and Mst. Behrawar Sultana were their landlord who died issueless and that the petitioner had ncver alleged himself to be the owner of property nor he has ever reccived any rent from them and that till August 1997, the rent has been paid to Mst. Behrawar Sultana, whereas, the rent therealter in view of the direction of the court in another petition is being depositerl befbre the court. Nevertheless, Kareem Bakhsh or the pctitioners have got no connectior/concem or interest with the disputed property; hence, no ejectment could be sought against them. The petitioner filed re-joinder in response to the written reply of respondents whereafter an issue was framed that whether the relationshio of landlord and tcnant exists between the panies. The parues were directed to adduce thcir evidence. Petitioner himself appeared as PW-l and closed his evidence. Statement ol'Nusrat Ullah Civil Nazir, Office of Senior Civil.ludge, Peshawar was recorded as CW- l, whereas, the respondents produced their evidcnce. l,carned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment applications through his judgement dated 07,02.2002 and appeal thereagainst was allowed by leamed Additional District.fudge-Il, Peshawar on 15.04.2003, which judgement w.as questioned before this Courr through W.P Nos.687, 688 and 689, which were decided through consolidated judgement in Writ Petition No.687. AII the Writ Petitions were allowed, judgements & orders of learned appeal courl was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the learncd appcal court lbr decision afresh- 'lhe order o[ this Court was questioned t]rrough Civil Petitions Nos.576 to 578-Pl2004, before the Hon'ble

J

Supreme Court, which were dismissed and leave to appeal was received vide judgement dated 30.12.2004. l,earnecl appcal court through impugned judgement dated 06.02.2006 disrnissed ttre appeals of the petitioners; hence the instant petition.

3.This and the connected petitions were heard by this Court on 03.02.2015 and were allowed by settingaside the judgement and order of both the courts below (Rent Controller and appcal court) with the directions to respondents (allesed tenants) to hand over the vacant possession of the rented premises to the petitioner however, the order o[ this Court was questioned belbrc Hon'ble Supreme Court through Civil Appeal Nos.284, 285 and 286 of 2015, which were allowed on 13.09.2023 and the mirttcr was remitted to this Court lbr decision afresh.

4, [rarned counsel fbr t]rc petitioners contcnrled that admittedly the rcslxrndents wcre *re teniutts, yet they havc not admitted the petitioners as their landlord, but in vielv of their stance of being tenants they could not dispute the ownership of the petitioners. He contended that Mst Behrawar Sultana and Sher Muhammad were the legal heirs o[Mst. Maqbool Begum, who was *re daughter o[ Qamar Din (late). Both Sher Mulrammad and Mst.

Behrawar Sultana died issueless to whom the erstwhile owner Abdul Hakeem had gifted the rented propemy. Since Sher Muhammad died issueless in 1995 and his owncrship was inherited by Behrawar Sultana who too dicd issucless howeter, thrttugh gil't deed dated 16.02.1994 has siltcd the rcntc<l propcrty to thc petitioners. He also contended that the petitioner Nol being the landlord used to receive the rent from respondents who were served with the notice of change of ownership under Section l3-A o[ West Pakistiur Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, however, they have stopped the payment o[ rent and disputed the status of petitioner as their landlord along with the denial of relafionstrip thus, they could not retain the posscssion of the rented premiscs, He maintaincd that whcn the tenants have disputed the relationship :urd status ol' the <;wnership ol' thc pcliLioncrs, thcy were required to prove it through cogent, rcliable and direct evidence which was lacking on the part of the respondcnts. He

vocif'erated tltat the re spondents have maneuvered qucsLioning the ir relationship with the connivance ol'somc ol' thc lcgal he irs of' Sher Muhammarl and Mst. Behrawar Sultana but couki not prove their contention before the Court and all those applications were decided in favour o[petitioners, however, the learned appeal court and the Rent Controller has travelled beyond jurisdiction. I astly contended that in consonance with the direction ol'the Apcx Court through.ludgement dated I 3.09.2023, re spondents wcrc dircctcd to pay the rent and this Court was required to direct them to clcposit the rent but the respondcnts have violated the order of this Court.

He also produced the copy of letter of' adnrinistration lionr the Courl ol'Guardiiur Judgc, Peshaw'ar in Case No.l645/02 of 2019 tided " Ahmad elc. Vs. Public at and rcqucstcd that since the properties are being managed by the petitioners, they are the owners of the properties and are entitled to recover the possession of the disputed shops from the respondents alongwith the payment of rent. He in support o[ his subnrissions made reliancc in the cases ol' "M,H. M Vs. M Tafar Iqbal & another" (2004 scMR 1,153), "Mueen Ullah Vs. The Medical Superintendent DHQ Hospital, Kasur & anotler" (1996 SCMR l156), "Musawir Ahmad & others Vs. Ghulam Rasool & another" (2014 MLD 229), "M. Nazir Vs. S. Shaukat Ali' (1982 SCMR 985), "Mst. Soniva Sharif Vs. Bashir Kundi throueh lrra] Heirs & others" (2013 MLD 1786), ,,Martzar g1rr1, alias Manzar Hussain Naqvi Vs. Ch. Shafoat Hussain & 02 others" (2015 YI-R.

595), "Ahmad Yar throueh LRs Vs. Additional District Iudre & others" (2015 Y[,R 2476), "Merai-Uddin Ghauri Vs. Muhammad Aslam & others" (PLD 2008Iturachi 160), "Abdullah & another Vs. Mst. Farzana" (2014 cLC 1463) and "Chaman Zada Vs. Shah 7Eb &-02 others" (2014 crr 151)

5 Mr. Abrlul Sanrad Khirr, Advocatc, rcpt'cscrrting respondents in all the petitions supported thc irnpugrrcd ordcrs and contended that unle.ss the relaLionship is Jrrovcd,l txr or<lcr lor I ejectment could Qe passed against tf," Hrtffifs'. Hc also t contended that the respondents have deposited the rent till

vociferated that the re spondents have maneuvered questioning their relationship with the connivance o[ some of the legal heirs of Sher Muhammad and Mst. Behrawar Sultana but could not prove their contention lrcfore the Court and all those applications were decided in favour ol'petitioners, however, the learned appeal court and the Rent Controller has travelled beyond jurisdiction. l,astJy contended that in consonance with the direction of the Apex Court through judgernent dated I3.09.2023, respondents were directed to pay the rent and this Court was required to direct thcm to deposit the rent but the respondents have violated the order of this Court.

He also produced the copy of letter of administration from the Court ol' Guardizur.)udge, Peshawar in Case No.(645/02 of 2019 titled " etc. Vs. Public at and rcquested that since the properties are being managed by the petitioners, they are the owners of the properties and are entitled to recover the possession of the disputed shops from the respondents alongwith the payment ol' rent. He in support of his submissions made reliance in the ca-ses ol'"M.H. Musadao Vs. M uhammad Zafar Iobal & another" (2004 SCMR 1453), "Mueen Ullah Vs. The Medical Sunerintendent DHQ Hosnital. Kasur & another" (1996 SCMR 1156), "Musawir Ahmad & others Vs. Ghulam Rasool & another" (2014 MLD 229), "M. Nazir Vs. S. Shaukat Ali" (1982 scMR 985), "Mst. Soniya Sharif Vs. Bashir Kundi throush t.eml Heirs & others' (2013 MLD 1786), "Manzar Shah alias Manzar Hussain Naqvi Vs. Ch. Shafqat Hussain & 02 others" (2015 YI-R 595), "Ahmad Yar throush LRs Vs. Additional District.Iudqe & others" (2015 YI-R 2476), "Merai-Uddin Ghauri Vs. Muhammad Aslam & others" (PLD 2008 Karachi 160), "Abdullah & another Vs. MsL Farzana" (2014 CLC 1463) and "Chaman Zada Vs. Shah Zeb&0 rs (2014 cLC r51)

5 Mr. Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate, representing respondents in all the pctitions supporte d the impugned orders atrd contended that unless the relationship is proved, no order for ejectrnent could be passed against the respondents. He also contended that the respondenls have deposited the rent tjll

December, 2025 belbre the Rent Controller and have placed on file the receipts tlrough separate application in all the pctitions.

6.Arguments hcard record perused.

7.In their respective ejectment applications, the petitioners contended that their predecessor-in-interest, Karim Bakhsh, was the landlord of the disputed property, while the respondents were tenants. Karim Bakhsh died issueless, and petitioners No. 2 to 4 are his siblings. The ejectment was sought on the ground of default in rent payment from April 1995 until the institution of the applications. In their written replies, the respondents categorically denied the existence of any landlord-tenant relationship. Consequently, the petitioners filed a rejoinder (further and better statement). In paragraph 3 of the rejoinder, they asserted that after the death of Sher Muhammad and Mst. Behrawar Sultana, they became landlords of the property. However, when one of the petitioners appeared as PW-1, he stated during cross- examination that Sher Muhammad had died in 1995, whereas Mst. Behrawar Sultana died in 1997.He further admitted that Sher Muhammad and Mst. Behrawar Sultana were not the owners of the property and stated that Mst. Behrawar Sultana had never received rent after Sher Muhammad's death. It is an admitted fact that the respondents were not the direct tenants of the petitioners, The petitioners instead relied upon the claim that Abdul Hakeem Khan, who owned various properties including the rented premises, had died issueless. During his lifetime, through a registered deed dated 77.02.1993, he distributed his properties among his legal heirs, including his nephew Sher Muhammad, who became the 'N owner of the disputed premises. It was further alleged that Sher Muhammad, also issueless, executed a gift deed dated L6.02.1994 in favour of Muhammad Nazeer and Karim Bakhsh jointly, while retaining usufruct of the property during his lifetime. Upon his death, the petitioners claimed to have

started collecting rent from the respondents. The petitioners also annexed a pedigree table showing that Qamar Din was succeeded by Mst. Maqbool Begum, Malik Muhammad Ashiq, and Abdul Hakeem. Mst. Maqbool Begum was survived by Mst.

Behrawar Sultana and Sher Muhammad, while Karim Bakhsh was the son of Malik Muhammad Ashiq. Another pedigree table showed Sher Muhammad as the nephew of Abdul Hakeem, who was also survived by his widow Ameena Begum and Muhammad Ashiq. According to the petitioners, through Will Deed No.7 dated 23.05.1943,Abdul Hakeem transferred the property to his nephew Sher Muhammad. Subsequently, Sher Muhammad, by way of the gift deed dated L6.02.7994, transferred the property to Muhammad Nazeer and Malik Karim Bakhsh. The petitioners further relied on rent agreement Ex. PW-7/2 dated 22.03.1993, whereby Karim Bakhsh (son of Malik Muhammad Ashiq and one of the transferees from Sher Muhammad) allegedly handed over possession of the rented premises to the respondents. This assertion, however, was categorically denied by the respondents, though they did not claim ownership of the property themselves. lt must be clarified that ownership, as such, is not directly relevant in matters before the Rent Controller under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Under sections 2(c) and (i) ofthe Ordinance, a landlordis defined as any person entitled to receive rent in respect of a building or rented land, whether on his own account or on behalfofanother person, or in a representative capacity (trustee, guardian, receiver, executor, or administrator). The definition also includes a tenant who sublets a building or rented land in the prescribed manner, as well as every person deriving title under the landlord. A tenan| on the other hand, is defined as any person by whom, or on whose account, rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes: (a) a tenant continuing in possession after termination of tenancy, and (b) the wife and children of a

deceased tenant. However, the definition excludes a person placed in possession of the building or land by a tenant without the landlord's written consent, or a person entrusted with the collection of rents or fees in public places such as markets, cart stands, slaughterhouses, or shops leased out by municipal or improvement authorities.

B. The petitioners have based their claim of ownership on the documents annexed with the instant petition, asserting transfer of title through Sher Muhammad, who himself derived the property as a beneficiary from Malik Abdul Hakeem. If this assertion is correct, then Mst, Behrawar Sultana had no connection whatsoever with the property and could not have become a transferee as the legal heir of Sher Muhammad, who himself has transferred the property to the predecessor in interest of petitioner. The documents relied upon by the petitioners, namely Deed No. 7 dated 23.02.1943 and the Gift Deed dated 16.02.1994, are inconsistent with the stand taken by them. In paragraph 3 of the preliminary objection in their rejoinder, the petitioners claimed to have become landlords after the death of Sher Muhammad and Mst.

Behrawar Sultana. The Gift Deed dated L6.02.t994, however, left nothing to be transferred upon the death of Sher Muhammad, thereby negating their said plea. From the rejoinder itself, it is evident that Mst. Behrawar Sultana had no nexus with the rented premises. Although the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is limited and does not extend to determination of ownership, once the respondents denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and the petitioners filed their rejoinder alleging transfer of rights through Sher Muhammad, the burden squarely lay upon the petitioners to prove the documents relied upon for establishing ownership and, consequently, the existence of landlord-tenant relationship, which was the sole issue framed by the learned Rent Controller. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised two principal contentions: first, that the respondents had not

claimed ownership of the rented premises; and second, that they were estopped from disputing the title of the petitioners. Both contentions were of considerable significance, yet the petitioners were required to establish their status as landlords in the first instance and thereafter prove the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondents. It is an admitted position that, except for the statement of Muhammad Nazeer, special attorney for the petitioners, no other witness appeared before the Rent Controller either to establish transfer oftitle in favour ofthe petitioners in the capacity of landlords, or to prove the existence ofthe landlord-tenant relationship. The alleged rent agreement of 1993 was also not proved, as neither the scribe nor the marginal witnesses, namely Akhtar lan s/o Ghulam Jan and Syed ljaz Ahmad Shah s/o Syed Rehmat Shah, were produced before the Rent Controller. Similarly, the stamp vendor was not examined. Most importantly, the original Iqrar Nama/rent deed was not tendered in evidence, Furthermore, no effort was made to prove receipt of rent by the petitioners from the date of the alleged transfer of ownership, as claimed in paragraph 2 of the memorandum of petition. In these circumstances, the petitioners failed to prove the existence of any landlord-tenant relationship with the respondents. In Rahmaaillah v Ali Muhammad and othen (1983 SCMR 1064), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered whether, in cases where doubt arises regarding ownership of the disputed premises, the Rent Controller or Appellate Court may evict a tenant, leaving questions of title or fraud to be determined by the Civil Court. It was held that in such situations, the Rent Controller may form only a tentative opinion regarding the existence of landlord-tenant relationship, as it is not always necessary for a landlord, within the broad and extended definition of the term under the law, to prove ownership. Thus, the Rent Controller is not required to adjudicate upon disputed questions of title.

Nevertheless, while the statutory definition of landlord is wide, covering persons entitled to receive rent in various capacities, even where they are not owners, it remains undeniable tha! in most cases, a landlord's claim is predicated upon ownership, since the right to receive rent ordinarily flows from title in the property. This category of landlord is recognized in the very opening clause of the statutory definition, which includes "any person for the time being entitled to receive rent whether on his own account or ......" as a landlord. Accordingly, where a claim to land lordship is advanced based on ownership, the Rent Controller, before granting satisfaction under section 13, must be convinced that the claimant, as landlord, is indeed the owner and thus entitled to recover rent.

9.Similarly, in Prouince of Puniab through Education Secrehrv and another u Mufti Abdul Ghani (PLD 1985 SC 1). the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted Ieave to examine the question whether a person who bases his claim as landlord, under the opening part ofthe definition in section 2(c), upon his right to receive rent on account of ownership of the property, must first establish his title before the Rent Controller. It was observed that such a claim can only be adjudged as landlord if he succeeds in satisfying the Rent Controller regarding his title; failure to do so would inevitably result in a verdict against him. Even where the Rent Controller is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the claimant's title, the decision on the issue of land lordship must be rendered against such claimant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further framed and addressed two questions: (i) whether, under the Rent Restriction Law, the Controller or the appellate court can .T determine the existence of landlord-tenant relationship in favour ofthe landlord when the strength ofhis case is doubtful or when the evidence produced by the tenant casts doubt upon the landlord's claim; and (ii) whether, in such circumstances, it is the tenant rather than the landlord who

should be relegated to seek redress before the Civil Court. The Court held as follows:

Regarding the first question it was made clear that when a person relying on the opening part ofthe definition oflandlord in section 2(c) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (No. Vl of 1959 bases his claim on the right to receive rent on account of the ownership of the property, he will have to "satisfir" the Rent Controller about the title. Ifhe succeeds, he would be adjudged as landlord. If he fails to satisfu the Rent Controller, the verdict will be against him. And further if the Rent Controller's satisfaction is not beyond reasonable doubt even then the verdict on this question will be against him.

ln this case obviously as discussed above the basis of respondent's claim to be adjudged as landlord is his alleged claim to receive the rent on the basis ofownership ofthe property. It has been found that the land underneath the building does not belong to him. It has been transferred to "the school" which belongs to the appellants. Thus, to that extent the respondent is not entitled to recover the rent and io therefore not the landlord. Regarding the superstructure also it is not denied that the appellants made substantial contributions to the raising of the superstructure though their claim is that the same also belongs to them in its entirety. The respondent has made a confident challenge to this claim; but has not succeeded beyond reasonable doubt in establishing before us that he also partly owns the superstructure on account ofsome contibution which he might be able to establish as and when an occasion and opportunity arise. Thus, his claim to the status of being the landlord regarding the superstructure also does not go beyond the stage of a mere possibility. Hence having failed 1 to create satisfaction, which is beyond reasonable doubt on this vital question, hell could not be adjudged as landlord. That being so no relationship of landlord and tenant having been established this appeal must succeed on this ground.

No doubt the petitioners have placed on file the documents, but they could not prove the transfer of

ll

ownership in their favour in juxtaposition with the factum of existence of relationship.

10.In addition, it is a well-established principle that when a tenant raises an objection regarding the non-existence ofthe landlord-tenant relationship because of an alleged ownership claim founded upon a deed or lqrar Nama, such tenant must first surrender possession ofthe premises before asserting his claim of ownership. However, in the present matter, the respondents have, from the very outset, never asserted ownership of the property. On the contrary, they have categorically admitted that they are tenants, though not of the present petitioners. The petitioners, in turn, have attempted to construct their case based on a title document. It is settled law that a Rent Controller is not competent to adjudicate questions of title or other complicated factual controversies of the kind alleged in the present matter. Reliance may be placed on Fariduddin Masood u Additional District ludge. Bahawalpur (Z)19 SCMR 842) wherein it was held that any dispute regarding the ownership or title of the property forming the subject-matter of eviction proceedings must be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, and that a Rent Tribunal or Rent Controller lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such questions. ln the instant case, therefore, the petitioners could not have maintained an application for impleadment in the eviction proceedings with a view to having their claim of ownership determined by the Rent Controller. Further reliance may be placed on Muhammad and otherc (2000 SCMR 1525), wherein it was observed that disputes concerning title cannot be resolved within rent proceedings or appeals arising therefrom under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The same principle was reaffirmed in Ahmad Ali alias Ali Ahmad u Nasar-Uddin and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 4s3).

t2

11.Reverting to the objection raised by the petitioners regarding the alleged violation of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for deposit of rent before the Cour! it is settled law that where the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, no such order for deposit of rent could ordinarily be made. In the present matter, however, the respondents/ tenants have consistently asserted that they are not tenants of the petitioners but of their previous landlords. The respondents have also placed on record attested copies of receipts showing deposit of rent from July to December 2025 in all three petirions. Accordingly, the objection raised by the petitioners concerning violation ofthe order ofthe apex Court is misconceived. During arguments, learned counsel Mr. Tariq faved produced the order ofthe Senior Civilfudge, Peshawar dated 04.07.2020, whereby a Letter of Administration was issued in favour of Muhammad Nazeer, the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners, in respect of certain properties mentioned in the annexed schedule. Along with the said order, a copy of Deed No,3239 was also produced, reflecting partition of the property, which too formed the subject matter of a civil suit that has not yet been conclusively adjudicated upon. It further appears that one Muhammad faved son of Zarin filed an application against Mst. Behrawar Sultana through her legal heirs, wherein the present petitioners also sought impleadment based on a gift deed dated 76.02.1994. This application was initially allowed on 10.09.L997; however, vide order dated 02,02.1998, Mr, Ibrar Ahmad, Rent Controller, Peshawar, directed the tenants to deposit rent and dismissed the petitioners' application for impleadment as infructuous, which order attained finality and was never challenged. Subsequently, litigation also ensued before the civil court in Suit No.380/1, filed oo27.03.1998 and dismissed as withdrawn on 05.07.2000 in the case titled Ghulam Muhammad and others u Muhammad Nazeer and others.

D. It is a settled proposition of law that an application for ejectment is maintainable only at the instance of a person who qualifies either as the landlord of the tenant i,e., within the broad definition of landlord, which encompasses entitlement to seek ejectment on the basis of the landlord-tenant relationship, or as the owner of the property in question. Where the applicant fails to establish himself as the landlord, and equally cannot prove his ownership of the premises, the application is not maintainable. Conversely, if the right of ejectment is asserted based on ownership, the applicant must first have his title adjudicated and established before the court of competent jurisdiction, namely the civil court. Only upon such adjudication and proof of ownership can his claim for ejectment be entertained under the rent laws. It is further well-settled that to qualify as landlord, ownership of the property is not a sine qua non; what is required is entitlement, for the time being, to receive rent from the tenant. ln the instant case, even such entitlement could not be established. Thus, the governing principle both restricts the remedy and prescribes the proper course: ownership must first be proved before the competent forum, and only thereafter can the remedy of ejectment be lawfully invoked. Thus, in all three petitions, the petitioners have failed to substantiate their claims with cogent reliable, and convincing evidence. Rather, they have embroiled themselves in protracted litigation since 7997 by attempting to establish ownership under the garb of land lordship. The question whether the petitioners, on the strength ofthe deeds relied upon before the Rent Controller, had become transferees of the property from the actual landlords of the respondents was, in essence, a question of title, a matter clearly falling outside the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, as settled in Abdul Hamid and three othets u Syed Abdul Qadar and otheg (PLD 2008 SC 49). As the sole issue framed was not proved in favour of the petitioners, and since no tenancy agreement was executed between the parties nor

had the petitioners ever received rent from the respondents, the learned Appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeals by passing a well-reasoned judgment, appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective and applying the law correctly. The findings of the learned Rent Controller, dismissing the ejectment applications, thus stood affirmed by concurrent findings of fact of both courts below, which are not open to interference in view of the settled principles under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners having failed to point out any illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional defect, all these petitions stand dismissed. Before parting with this judgment, however, it is observed that the petitioners may approach a court of competent jurisdiction for determination of their ownership/title. Any observations made by this Court or the Appellate Court being tentative in nature shall not prejudice such proceedings. If such a suit is filed before the competent forum, the same shall be decided strictly on its own merits and in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

Ann owced on 29, 0 7, 2025.

Released in 28.08.2025.

,t

JUD GE

AriIl-\ SS ,,8) H@bb M..IBrt Molatud ltt-cm har