Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 115

Case Summary The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed a civil petition for leave to appeal filed by tenants challenging their ejectment after losses in lower courts and the Peshawar High Court, upholding the landlord's decree for recovery of produce and ejectment. - Core Points Tenants entered possession as such and contested ejectment suit through trial, appeal, revisions, and writ, all dismissed up to Supreme Court. Tenant estopped under Article 115, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, from denying landlord's title while retaining possession as tenant. Tenant claiming ownership must first surrender possession, then litigate title separately in competent civil court. Ejectment proceedings remain maintainable despite tenant's ownership claims, as Rent Controller lacks jurisdiction over title disputes. Proper remedy for co-ownership claim is civil suit for partition, not resisting ejectment. Law And Section Law/Section Description Cited Cases Article 115, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 Estoppel of tenant: Bars tenant from denying landlord's title during tenancy continuance.basicpakistanilaws.blogspot+1 Mst. Seema Begum v. Muhammad Ishaq (PLD 2009 SC 45)caselaw.shc-; Barkat Masih v. Manzoor Ahmad (2006 SCMR 1068)scribd- Rent Restriction Ordinance (implied jurisdiction) Rent Controller's limited role excludes adjudication of title/ownership disputes. Nazir Ahmad v. Mst. Sardar Bibi (1989 SCMR 913); Ghulam Mustafa v. Mst. Muhammadi Begum (1991 SCMR 432); Muhammad Nazir v. Saeed Subhani (2002 SCMR 1540); Waheed Ullah v. Mst. Rehana Nasim (2004 SCMR 1568) ORDER SHAHID BILAL HASSAN-J: Facts, in precision, are as such that respondents No.1 to 7 instituted a suit for recovery of produce and ejectment against the present petitioners, before the DDO(R)/AAC(R), Peshawar. The petitioners contested the suit by filing written statement. After framing of issues and recording of evidence from both sides, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.07.2013 decreed the suit in favour of the respondents No.1 to 7. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar, which was dismissed vide order…