Ejaz Hussain vs Saeed Ahmad

Stereo. H C J D A 38

JUDGMENT SHEET

LAHORE HIGH COURT

RAWALPINDI BENCH RAWALPINDI

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P No.3428/2021

Ijaz Hussain Versus Saeed Ahmed etc.

JUDGMENT

Date of Hearing 22.09.2026 Petitioner By: Khawaja Muhammad Asghar Farooq, Advocate Respondent No.1 Ms. Shahida Tanveer Chaudhary, Advocate By:

Anwaar Hussain J: Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an ejectment petition under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (“the Act”), inter alia, on the ground of default and structural change by respondent No.1 (“the respondent”), who filed leave to appear and contest (“PLA”) the eviction petition. The latter admitted his induction as tenant under the petitioner, however, pleaded that he is not a defaulter as he was duly notified about the change of ownership of the rented premises by one Shehryar Sikendar, who is nephew ( )بھانجھاof the petitioner and claimed ownership of the rented premises on the basis of registered sale deed dated 08.06.2017, and since then the respondent is paying rent to the said Shehryar Sikendar. PLA was accepted. Issue of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant was framed. Both sides led evidence, whereafter, Special Judge Rent, Chakwal (“the Tribunal”) accepted the ejectment petition through order dated 02.02.2021 and when appeal was preferred by the respondent, the Appellate Court

W.P No.3428/2021

below, through impugned judgment dated 05.08.2021, upended the findings of the Tribunal.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that findings of the Courts below are at variance and it is for this Court to adjudge as to which of the two findings has been rendered in accordance with law and after appreciating the evidentiary resume of the case. Adds that the Appellate Court below overlooked the fact that induction of the respondent as tenant by the petitioner was accepted and the Appellate Court below travelled beyond its jurisdiction to endorse the forged sale deed in favour of Shehryar Sikendar.

3.Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned findings, however, could not refute that the respondent did not verify the veracity of the sale deed from the petitioner albeit he contends that the petitioner and above referred Shehryar Sikendar are close relatives and used to jointly visit the premises, and the respondent was under the impression that the transaction is genuine. She further contended that the civil litigation is pending between the petitioner and above-referred Shehryar Sikendar regarding the title of the rented premises.

4.In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 08.06.2017, which has been decreed, vide judgment dated 28.06.2024 during the pendency of the present proceedings and copy of the judgment was brought on record through C.M No.03/2025. He contends that appeal preferred by above referred Shehryar Sikendar against decree of the Civil Court is pending, however, the said decree is intact.

5.Arguments heard. Record perused.

W.P No.3428/2021

6.The controversy involved in the present petition gives rise to the determination of the following question of law:

Whether a tenant, having admittedly entered into possession under the ejectment petitioner and acknowledged him as landlord, can unilaterally disown the relationship of landlord and tenant by setting up a rival title in a third party, particularly when such third party’s title is itself disputed and sub judice before a Court of law?

7.The record presents an admitted factual position. The respondent/tenant was inducted into the rented premises by the petitioner through a written tenancy agreement. Upon expiry of the stipulated period, he continued to occupy the premises as a tenant under the oral tenancy. Thus, the respondent neither claims an independent origin of possession nor disputes that his entry into the premises was based on the tenancy created by the petitioner. The legal consequence flowing from such an admission could not have been overlooked by the Appellate Court below. A tenant, whose induction under a landlord is admitted, cannot, during continuance of possession originating from such tenancy, defeat the relationship by setting up title in a third person.

8.A distinction in this regard is fundamental. A dispute inter se rival claimants regarding ownership of the property is a dispute of title to be determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction, whereas the relationship between landlord and tenant is to be examined with reference to the source and character of the tenant’s induction in, and possession of, the rented premises. The latter cannot be made dependent upon the tenant’s unilateral preference amongst competing claimants to the title. The respondent attempted to overcome his admitted induction by asserting title in favour of third party loses significance when examined in the context of the record. Said third person— Shehryar Sikendar neither entered the witness box in

W.P No.3428/2021

support of his title nor sought impleadment in the ejectment proceedings for assertion of his alleged proprietary rights. Even after passing of the ejectment order dated 02.02.2021, he did not independently assail the said order on the ground that the respondent was his tenant and that his rights as owner/landlord had thereby been prejudiced.

9.There is another circumstance of considerable significance. The sale deed dated 08.06.2017 in favour of Shehryar Sikendar forming the very foundation of the respondent’s plea was already under challenge before the Civil Court and remained subject to an injunctive order when the Tribunal was hearing the matter. Admittedly, it has subsequently been cancelled through a decree, against which an appeal preferred by Shehryar Sikendar is stated to be pending. No opinion as to the ultimate validity of the said instrument is either called for or being expressed in these proceedings, as that question is subject to the adjudication of the Civil Court. What is material for the present controversy is that a disputed title, pending independent adjudication, could not legally furnish the respondent with a basis to negate the relationship arising out of his own admitted induction as tenant, under the petitioner.

10.The conduct of the respondent during the course of these proceedings further fortifies the above conclusion. Learned counsel for the respondent, while referring to a civil miscellaneous application No.05/2025, in present petition, sought to introduce yet another plea that, on the basis of a revenue report recently brought to the notice of the respondent, the rented premises belongs to the Government of Punjab. The plea is wholly inconsequential for determination of the present lis. Rather, it depicts that the respondent is bent upon to prolong his possession over the rented premises on one pretext or the other. Moreover, if the Government of Punjab has any right, title or

W.P No.3428/2021

interest in the property, nothing prevents it from asserting and protecting the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

11.Indeed, the successive positions taken by the respondent bring the controversy into sharper focus. Having admittedly entered into possession under the petitioner, the respondent initially sought to disown that relationship by setting up title in favour of Shehryar Sikendar and has now attempted to question both private claims by referring to an alleged title of the Government of Punjab. A tenant cannot retain possession traceable to an admitted tenancy without consent of the landlord and, when faced with ejectment, defeat the landlord’s claim by setting up jus tertii (the right of a third party). The Appellate Court below, therefore, fell into error in allowing the respondent to derive an advantage from a disputed third-party title while losing sight of the admitted source and character of his possession. His alleged subsequent tenancy under Shehryar Sikendar, unsupported by the latter himself and founded upon a title already embroiled in independent civil litigation, could not unilaterally displace the existing jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. Much less can the respondent now resist ejectment by setting up an alleged title of the Government of Punjab, which the latter, if so advised, may assert and enforce independently, in accordance with law.

12.The question of law framed above is, therefore, answered in the negative. A tenant, having admittedly been inducted into possession by the ejectment petitioner, cannot, while retaining possession originating from such tenancy, unilaterally disown the jural relationship by setting up a third party disputed title. Competing proprietary claims remain open to determination at the instance of the persons asserting them before the competent forum, but their mere

W.P No.3428/2021

assertion by the tenant neither alters the character of his possession nor furnishes him a defence to ejectment at the instance of the landlord under whom his induction stands admitted.

13.In view of the above discussion, present petition is allowed and impugned judgment dated 05.08.2021 passed by the Appellate Court below is set aside. As a corollary, the order of the Tribunal dated 02.02.2021 is restored. The respondent is obligated to forthwith handover possession to the petitioner.

(ANWAAR HUSSAIN)

JUDGE

Approved for reporting.

Judge

AB**