Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 1940 2004 SLD 1940 2004 CLC 1382
Lahore High Court
Second Appeal from Order No. 11 and Civil Revision No. 1456 of 2000, heard on 22-04-2004.
SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Mst. SAKINA BIBI and others

VS

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD ALI and 9 others

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)------S. 13---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Estoppel, principle of ---Expiry of tenancy agreement, effect of ---Ejectment petition was filed by the respondent against the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-- After the death of the said predecessor-in-interest, the appellants filed a suit for declaration and injunction for the same property which was the subject-matter of the ejectment petition---Both the ejectment petition and the said suit were consolidated---Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellants 'and accepted the ejectment petition of the respondent--­ Separate appeals filed by the appellants against tic said decisions of the Trial Court were dismissed by the First Appellate Court- -Second appeal and a revision petition was subsequently filed against the said decisions of the First Appellate Court which were disposed of together--­Contention of the appellants was that the respondent was not the owner of the premises and, therefore, could not have initiated ejectment proceedings against them and that the ejectment petition was not competent after the expiry of the period of tenancy fixed in the deed--­Reply of the respondent that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in his life time had not disputed the title of the respondent, nor denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, therefore, the appellants were estopped to make such contentions that were never pleaded in the lower Courts---Validity---Documents on record showed that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had admitted and acknowledged the respondent as owner and landlord of the premises, and had never disputed the title of the latter -as the landlord---Denial of the title of the respondent by the appellants through a suit was an afterthought and a counterblast to the ejectment proceedings---Appellants could not succeed by pressing a plea which had no basis or backing of pleadings, moreover, their conduct and drift in stance also estopped them from such course of action---Even after the expiry of tenancy agreement, the terms of the same continue to operate and govern the parties, and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492