Blog Post

Citation Name: 2021 MLD 542 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

ALI HASSAN VS Mst. SUMAIRA KHALID

Ss.13 & 14—Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.23 & 24—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.2(2)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.42—Ejectment of tenant—Bona fide personal need of landlord—Earlier ejectment petition having been dismissed as withdrawn—Death of a party during pendency of proceedings—Effect—Word ‘party’ contained in S.2(2) of C.P.C.—Scope—Eviction petition filed on behalf of landlord was accepted—Contention of tenant was that earlier eviction petition filed on behalf of landlord had been dismissed—Validity—Ejectment petition would only be barred if application on same issue had earlier been decided between the parties on merits—If earlier eviction petition had been decided finally then Rent Controller should reject subsequent ejectment petition summarily—Where order of dismissal of earlier eviction petition was on technical ground or for non-prosecution without deciding matter on merits the it could not be a bar to file a fresh ejectment petition on the same ground—Landlord required demised premises to run his own business and he had personal bona fide need—Word ‘party’ did include legal representatives of the deceased and they would step into his/her/their shoes—Decree in eviction proceedings in favour of an applicant would entitle him to get possession of demised premises and upon his death same did not abate—Once a right had accrued in favour of decree-holder then after his death, same would automatically devolve upon his legal heirs and they had the right to defend the decree—Contract was always enforceable against the legal heir or the successor-in-interest of original party and unless a contrary intention appeared by the contract same did not abate with the death of a party— Landlord had got approved site plan and building permit for new construction and he had substantiated his version through credible evidence—Statement of landlord on oath was quite consistent with his averment made in the eviction petition which was sufficient for eviction of tenant—No condition could be imposed against right of landlord to seek eviction even with mutual consent of the parties—Right of property as a fundamental right had been protected—Right of ownership was superior than the right of tenancy—Findings recorded by the Rent Controller were based on correct appraisal of evidence—Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2021 CLC 708 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Syed HABIBULLAH VS Syed ABDUL KHABEER S.13

––Eviction petition—Scope—tenant cannot be evicted on mere wish, convenience, whim and fancy of the landlord.

Citation Name: 2021 CLC 708 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Syed HABIBULLAH VS Syed ABDUL KHABEER S.13-–Eviction petition—Bona fide personal need of landlord—Scope—tenant challenged order passed by Rent Controller whereby he was directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises—Validity—Burden to prove that need of landlord was bona fide rather than mala fide was on the landlord—Landlord had tried to eject 22 tenants simultaneously on the ground of personal bona fide use—Landlord had not obtained permission from Municipal Committee for re-construction or for alteration in the building—Landlord’s brothers could not start business in 22 shops which were admittedly separate units—Landlord’s brothers were admittedly independent, they had settled their business abroad and rarely visit Pakistan—Names of the brothers, for whom the shops were required, were not mentioned in the eviction application—Property was mutated in the name of landlord’s father but he had not filed the eviction application—Appeal was accepted, impugned judgment was set aside and the eviction application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2021 CLC 708 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Syed HABIBULLAH VS Syed ABDUL KHABEER S.13-–Eviction petition—Bona fide personal need of landlord—Scope—Landlord has a superior right of possession and use of his property as against the tenant, but it has equally been settled that the tenant may not be deprived of his legal business and may not be shunted out from the said premises on mere assertion of the landlord.

Citation Name: 2021 CLC 678 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

 MUHAMMAD ALI VS ATLAS KHAN S.13(6)—Eviction of tenant—Default in payment of monthly rent—Non-compliance of order by the tenant to pay tentative monthly rent—Effect—Outstanding rent—Jurisdiction of the Rent Controller—Scope— Petitioner/tenant contended that Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the recovery of outstanding rent against him and the landlord/respondent had to approach the Civil Court—Held, that the Rent Controller had passed the order under S.13(6) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, directing the petitioner/tenant to deposit the tentative rent (before the 14th day of each month), in the presence of both the parties and the petitioner/tenant assailed the said order invoking revisional jurisdiction but the same was dismissed—Record revealed that the petitioner/tenant did not comply with the order (to deposit the monthly rent each month during the pendency of the case) and the Rent Controller, after almost one and half year of passing of said order, struck-off the defence of the petitioner/tenant and directed him to vacate the demised property—Petitioner/tenant, in his writtenreply, had not only admitted the relationship of the landlord and tenant existed between them, but he had also not denied/disputed non-payment of rent for the last decade or so—Petitioner/tenant was estopped to challenge eviction order against him due to non-compliance of deposit of monthly rent in terms of penal clause of S.13(6) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959—Jurisdiction of Rent Controller could not be curtailed only to the extent of passing an ejectment order— Rent Controller was vested with powers not only to determine the relationship of tenancy between the parties, but he had got jurisdiction to order the recovery of outstanding rent against the tenant—No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned orders and judgments passed by both the Courts below—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2021 CLC 678 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

 MUHAMMAD ALI VS ATLAS KHAN S.13

—Eviction of tenant—Subsequent construction/improvement on the demised property after the creation of the tenancy—Jurisdiction of the Rent Controller—Scope—Petitioner/tenant contended that as he was running a factory at the demised property so the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain eviction application filed by the landlord/respondent—Held, that the petitioner/tenant admitted in the written reply that he had installed machinery at the plot (rented premises)—When the rented premises were converted or any machinery was installed ( in the shape of factory) on it, the same would fall within the definition of building or rented land and it would not ouster the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller—Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Citation Name: 2021 MLD 808 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Mst. SHAHNAZ BIBI VS SIRAJ DIN Ss.15 & 19—

Ejectment of tenant—Mortgage deed (Girvee)—Petitioner was tenant in the premises owned by respondent—Eviction order passed by Trial Court was maintained by Lower Appellate Court—Validity—Neither petitioner/tenant filed any suit for redemption nor respondent/landlord filed suit for recovery of amount on the basis of usufruct mortgage— For all intents and purposes it was a rent agreement and relationship of landlord and tenant existed notwithstanding title and terms of mortgage deed with regard to possession— Petitioner/tenant was rightly ejected and two Courts below did not commit any illegality warranting interference by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, particularly in absence of suit for redemption or suit for right of foreclosure— Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2021 CLC 952 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

 NAVEED AKHTAR VS SPECIAL JUDGE (RENT), SIALKOT S.19

—Ejectment of tenant— Co-sharer, non-impleading of—Effect—Eviction application filed by landlord/respondent against tenant/petitioner was allowed by Rent Tribunal—Lower Appellate Court maintained eviction order passed by Rent Tribunal—Tenant/petitioner assailed maintainability of eviction application on the plea that premises fell in the share of other co-owner—Validity—Unlike suit for possession where all co-owners were needed to be associated either as plaintiffs or defendants, it was not necessary to associate other co-sharers in eviction proceedings—One of the co-landlords by co-owners could seek eviction of tenant without impleading other co-owners or associating them in proceedings—Premises was not partitioned either under decree of Court or under any family settlement—Mere pendency of any civil litigation for partition of property could not be a reason to protect tenant from eviction due to default—Oral and documentary evidence on record proved that petitioner was tenant of respondent who executed rent agreement in his favour and admitted payment of rent to him—Landlord/respondent was legally eligible to seek eviction of tenant/petitioner—High Court declined to interfere in eviction orders passed by two Courts below as those did not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2021 CLC 952 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

 NAVEED AKHTAR VS SPECIAL JUDGE (RENT), SIALKOT S.13

—tenant, obligations of—Change of status—Procedure—Once a tenant is always a tenant—If tenant intends to question title of landlord, he should vacate premises, restore possession to landlord and thereafter raise question of title. Citation Name: 2021 CLC 623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mrs. AZRA RIAZ VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE landlord may not be essentially an owner of the property and ownership may not always be a determining factor to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties—However, in the normal circumstances in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the owner of the property by virtue of his title is presumed to be the landlord and the person in possession of the premises is considered as tenant under the law. Citation Name: 2021 CLC 623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mrs. AZRA RIAZ VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE Once a tenant is always a tenant—During subsistence of tenancy, tenant has no right to challenge the title of landlord. Citation Name: 2021 CLC 623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mrs. AZRA RIAZ VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE S.19—Eviction petition—Scope—Petitioner sought eviction of tenant and sub-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent—Ejectment petition was contested by sub-tenant by filing an application for leave to contest wherein he asserted that he was occupant of the premises as tenant but not for the petitioner rather of another person (alleged owner)—Trial Court directed the sub-tenant to vacate the demised premises—Appellate Court, on an appeal filed by sub-tenant, remanded the case to Trial Court for decision afresh, after framing additional issues concerning relationship of landlord and tenant—Validity—Petitioner was owner/landlord of the property on the basis of two registered gift deeds in her favour—Alleged owner had not produced the original instrument through which his title to the property was accrued rather he had failed to prosecute his lis and his application under O.I, R.10, C.P.C., which was dismissed by the Trial Court—No valid ground and justification existed for the appellate Court to remand the case to the Trial Court when title of the petitioner qua the property in dispute was clear and unchallenged in all respects—Constitutional petition was allowed, order passed by appellate Court was set aside and that of Trial Court was upheld. Citation Name: 2021 CLC 623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mrs. AZRA RIAZ VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE Ss. 5, 6, 7 & 9—Agreement between landlord and tenant—Contents of tenancy agreement—Payment of rent—Effect of non-compliance—Scope—Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, does not debar entertainment of ejectment petition in case of oral tenancy—Palpable object of the law is to compel the parties to enter into a tenancy agreement within the purview and scope of the provisions of Ss. 5, 6 and 7 of the Act—Penalty has been provided by law for the breach of the obligations, envisaged thereby, in that, where the tenancy agreement is not so entered and registered and a landlord or the tenant approaches the Tribunal for the enforcement of his right(s) under the Act, he has to pay a fine- –Non-registration of rent agreement or oral tenancy is an irregularity that entails penal consequences—Such petition can be entertained subject to payment of fine as enshrined in S.9 of the Act. Citation Name: 2021 YLR 762 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case HASHMI CHARITABLE TRUST VS JAVED BALOCH S. 15—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.106—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Ejectment of tenant—Sub-letting—Pugree (Goodwill), payment of—Appellant was a trust and owner of shops in question which were in possession of defendant on “Pugree”—Money decree was passed in favour of plaintiff and tenancy rights regarding shops in question were ordered to be transferred in favour of plaintiff—Single Judge of High Court declined to set aside judgment and decree passed in favour of plaintiff—Plea raised by appellant was that no tenancy regarding shops in question could be created in favour of plaintiff to satisfy money decree passed against tenant—Validity— Periodic lease as provided under S.106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was similar to common rental practice of immovable properties—Fine distinction between the two was that rental properties were governed under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and as a special law prevailed over the provision of S.106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882—About transfer of rental right without will and wish of landlord, nothing of such sort was mentioned in Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and it did not recognize induction of another tenant in premises by existing or previous tenant—Sub-tenancy was a tenant without will and wish of landlord and if it was established that there was a sub-tenant both had to face forced ejectment from property—Division Bench of High Court set aside order passed by Single Judge of High Court and remanded the matter to thresh out all intricate questions of law and fact for which parties would need to bring evidence—Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2021 YLR 740 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE, EDUCATION, KARACHI VS HAFEEZ-UL-HAQ S. 15—Ejectment of tenant—High Court, jurisdiction of—Bona fide personal need of landlord—Choice of landlord— Board of Intermediate Education sought eviction of its tenant on bona fide personal need of demise shop—Rent Controller and Lower Appellate Court concurrently dismissed ejectment application and appeal filed by the Board— Validity—High Court could competently reverse findings of lower rent hierarchy if the same were found to be not in accordance with law—Availability of other shops / places could not be pressed by tenant to defeat landlord because the same was prejudicial to such preferential rights of landlord whereby landlord was to enjoy absolute prerogative to choose the best from available places—Petitioner was an institution which did not carry possibility of need of more space for adjusting students as well the staff—Premises was rented out to tenant only for purpose of running PCO (Public Call Office) but he by making breach thereof used the premises for purpose of Photostat machine, PCO as well as cold drink articles—Both the Courts below did not exercise their jurisdiction properly and fairly and High Court could undo such illegalities—High Court set aside concurrent orders passed by two Courts below and passed eviction order against tenant—Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2021 CLC 976 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case RIASAT KHAN VS ARSHAD ALI BHUTTO Ss.13 & 18—Eviction petition—Change in ownership—Scope—Petitioner claimed that he was landlord by virtue of sale deed of demised premises; that there was default on the part of tenant and that the premises was required for personal bona fide need—Courts below declined the ejectment application while holding non-existence of relationship of landlord and tenant—Validity—Reading of S.18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was sufficient to conclude that there was no bar on transfer of ownership of premises even without consent of the tenant which did not relax the legal obligation of the tenant to pay timely rent to the known owner/landlord—Obligation to ensure information of such change of ownership was only to inform the tenant that he had to make payment to new/changed owner—Relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties—Findings of courts below were set aside— Case was remanded to the Rent Controller with direction to decide the issue in the matter afresh while accepting the relationship of landlord and tenant—Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Citation Name: 2021 CLC 732 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS NANOO Ss.2(f) & 16(1)— Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Ejectment of tenant—“landlord”, determination of— Documentary evidence to exclude oral evidence—Petitioner filed applications for eviction of tenants from demised premises—Respondent claimed to be owner of demised premises and contested the proceedings with petitioner— Rent Controller accepted petitioner as landlord of the premises on the basis of title documents but Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings on the basis of oral assertion made by respondent— Validity— Rent Controller did not have jurisdiction to decide question of title of property and could not make any declaration with regard to ownership of a property as the same was domain of Civil Court—Rent Controller could determine issue as to whether there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between parties in the case—High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution was not debarred from examining judgment of Courts below to reach a conclusion as to whether the same suffered from any infirmity or illegality and whether there was any misreading or non-reading of evidence provided by parties before Courts below— Order of Rent Controller was on proper appreciation of evidence while judgment delivered by Lower Appellate Court in appeal preferred by respondent suffered from infirmity and illegality as well as misreading of evidence—Petitioner was competent to challenge judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court before High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction—High Court set aside order passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Rent Controller—Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2021 CLC 120 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mst. ZAHIDA HAROON VS MUHAMMAD ASHIQUE S.15—Eviction petition—Relationship of landlord and tenant—Scope—Petitioner (landlady) assailed orders passed by courts below whereby it was held that the relationship of tenancy did not exist between the parties—Contention of tenant was that he was the tenant of petitioner’s husband’s elder brother who had earlier filed an ejectment petition, which was dismissed and that he was occupying the shop other than the one mentioned in the petition—Validity— Tenant appeared to approbate and re-reprobate as he had in a way conceded to the case of petitioner who had deposed that previously her late husband was managing the affairs of the demised premises and thereafter it was being managed by her in-laws—Tenant had to prove that previous owner was still claiming right and interest in the property and as such, he could not accept the change of title being tenant of the subsequent landlord—No such evidence was available that the previous landlord had ever disputed to the change of landlord—If tenant was not admitting the petitioner as his landlord, he was required to file inter pleader proceedings to avoid default in payment of monthly rent—Judgments of courts below were set aside and the eviction application was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2021 CLC 98 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case NAFEESA BEGUM VS STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN S.12—Repairs of rented premises—Duty of landlord—Scope—tenant filed application under S.12 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for carrying out internal repair of rented premises—Rent Controller found that since the rent was liable to be increased as an automatic process of law and the tenant had defaulted, as such he was not entitled for a favourable order on the application—Appellate Court while disposing of the appeal maintained the same view— Validity—Repair as required in terms of S.12 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was never subject to any increase in rent, be it fair rent or any automatic enhancement—Evidence showed that there was no agreement in writing as to sharing the responsibility of repair and in the absence of such agreement as to who would perform such repair, the law would have taken its effect and the landlord was under an obligation to carry out the repairs—Landlord had not denied the damage being caused to the roof of bathroom and other internal structure of the premises— Impugned judgment was set aside and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for inquiry, both technical and financial, to be conducted directing the landlord and/or tenant to carry out such repair—Petition was disposed of accordingly. Citation Name: 2021 CLC 98 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case NAFEESA BEGUM VS STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN S.12—Repairs of rented premises—Duty of landlord—Scope—Rent Controller under the law is vested with the powers to direct the landlord to carry out repair or white-washing of the premises and/or in the alternate to direct the tenant to carry out such exercise subject to adjustment of cost, which is liable to be deducted from the future rents, payable to the landlord till it is fully adjusted—Such powers can be exercised by the Rent Controller in the absence of an agreement, which may demonstrate a responsibility on either party, whereas in the absence, it becomes the responsibility and obligation of landlord to keep the premises fit for human dwelling. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 13 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case The PROVINCE OF SINDH VS The ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST through Official Assignee, Karachi Ss. 15 & 3—Privately Managed Schools and Colleges (Taking Over) Regulation [MLR No.118 of 1972], Regln. 4— Eviction petition—Scope—Petitioner assailed several orders passed by Rent Controller and Additional District Judge- –Validity—Held; ejectment application was filed in accordance with law and the applicability of S. 3 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was resisted by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Court on the strength of the fact that MLR 118 of 1972 was only in respect of running the management of schools and colleges and the title of property was not altered—Relationship of landlord and tenant could not be deemed to be non-existent or ceased to be in existence by virtue of MLR 118 of 1972—Impugned orders were not found to be either void or without jurisdiction—Constitutional petitions were dismissed. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 616 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case Ch. FAKHAR-U-ZAMAN VS HASSAN ALI S. 14— Ejectment petition—Enhancement of rent—landlord, during pendency of eviction petition, moved application for enhancement of rent which was accepted and tenant was directed to deposit tentative rent—Validity—Relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties—Matter with regard to ejectment of tenant was subjudice before the Rent Controller—Appeal had been filed against interim order passed by the Rent Controller—Amount deposited under impugned order was subject to adjustment at the time of final disposal of the matter between the parties— Impugned order was neither a final order nor matter had been finally disposed of—Rent Controller had discretionary power to hold inquiry and he was not bound to follow the procedure stipulated in Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Rent Controller had not violated any law—Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 SCMR 1816 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case LIAQAT ALI VS FAYASUDDIN Ss. 3 & 15—Eviction petition—landlord and tenant, relationship of—Subject premises, which was Evacuee Trust property, was allotted to the respondent, who inducted the petitioner as a tenant in the same—Subsequently Evacuee Trust Board cancelled the Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) in favour of respondent and the issue went into litigation— Question as to whether after cancellation of PTD in favour of respondent, the relationship of landlord and tenant remained between the parties—Held, that admittedly the petitioner was inducted as tenant in the premises by the respondent, who was owner at that time—Although the PTD in favour of respondent may have been cancelled but such fact alone was not sufficient to make the petitioner a tenant of Evacuee Trust Property Board as the matter regarding cancellation of PTD was in dispute between the respondent and Evacuee Trust Property Board and was pending before the relevant forum—Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 2382 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ABDUL ELLAH RAHMANI VS MUHAMMAD KHAN S. 13—Ejectment of tenant—Default in payment of rent—Sale agreement in favour of tenant—Effect—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant—Tenants contended that they had a sale agreement in their favour of demised premises—Ejectment petition was dismissed concurrently—Validity—Demised premises stood in the ownership of landlord—Relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, in circumstances—No sale agreement had been produced before the Rent Controller—Tenants were occupying the demised premises as tenants and had committed default in payment of rent—Tenancy might be oral—Where tenant had denied the title of landlord and it was established that he was a tenant then he would forfeit his tenancy for having become a trespasser and liable to be ejected forthwith—Tenants had to stand on their own feet and required to discharge onus of proof placed on them—Tenants had denied relationship of landlord and tenant and they were bound to prove their title or locus standi for retaining the premises in question—Tenants had failed to prove their ownership with regard to demised premises through oral or documentary evidence—Agreement to sell did not create any right affecting relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant—Tenant must vacate the premises first and then claim on the basis of agreement to sell—Petitioners had succeeded to make out a case for eviction against the tenants and were entitled for vacant possession of demised premises—Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside and eviction petition was accepted, in circumstances—Respondents were directed to hand over vacant possession of demised premises to the petitioners within a period of two months—Tenants were directed to pay rent of demised premises for the last three years to the landlords—Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 1764 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case FAYYAZ AHMED VS MUHAMMAD AZAM S. 13—Ejectment of tenant—Default in payment of rent—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant—Oral tenancy— Scope— Tenants challenged the order of Rent Controller whereby they were directed to vacate the rented premises—Contention of tenants were that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties and that the landlord had not produced any tenancy agreement or rent receipt—Validity—Ownership of the house in question was proved by landlord through production of mutation entries and utility bills—Tenants had failed to produce any title document to support their possession over the premises in question, therefore, Rent Controller was competent to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant—Landlord had specifically pleaded that written agreement was not executed due to close relationship with the tenants—Owner of the property, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, was presumed to be of the landlord and the person in possession of the premises was considered as tenant under the law—Tenancy was not necessarily required to be created by a written instrument in express terms rather it could also be oral and implied—Conduct of the tenants was sufficient to hold them contumacious defaulters of rent—Eviction of tenants by the Rent Controller was amply justified and warranted no interference by the High Court—Appeal filed by tenants was dismissed. Citation Name: 2020 CLC 1764 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ABDUL AZIZ VS TOWN MUNICIPAL OFFICER HUB Ss.13 & 17—Eviction petition—Consent order—Execution petition—Objection petition—Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 applicability of—Appeal was disposed of with the observation that monthly rent should be increased and deposited in the account of landlord and dispute with regard to previous rent should be resolved by the competent Court of law—Execution petition was filed but same was dismissed on the ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed at the time of filing of appeal—Validity—Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 were not applicable to the proceedings in stricto sensu, however, Rent Controller could follow the equitable principles thereof—Decree should be executed in terms and conditions mention in the code—Executing Court had to confine its deliberations within the purview of the decree and not beyond that and to dispose of the objections in the light of terms and conditions of a decree—Rent Controller had no authority to deviate from a real controversy between the parties—Petitioner had filed execution petition with regard to consent order passed by the High Court—Executing Court was bound to resolve the question of amount of arrears of rent in the case—Matter was remanded to the Executing Court by the High Court with the direction to dispose of the execution petition and objection filed by the parties in the light of terms and conditions of order passed by the High Court—Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 CLC 1542 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS MUHAMMAD KHALID Ss.13 & 14—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.42—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.2(2)—Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 23 & 24—Ejectment of tenant—Bona fide personal need of landlord—Earlier eviction petition dismissed as withdrawn—Death of landlord—Effect—Expression ‘party’ contained in S.2(2) of C.P.C.—Scope—Ejectment petition was accepted by the Rent Controller and tenant was directed to handover vacant possession of demised premises to the landlord—Validity—Ejectment petition would be barred if petition on the same issue had earlier been decided on merits between the parties—Where earlier eviction petition had been dismissed on technical ground or for nonprosecution then there would be no bar to file a fresh petition on the same ground—Demised premises was required by the landlord for his personal bona fide need—Landlord had expired and his legal heirs had been impleaded in the appeal—Expression ‘party’ would include legal heirs and in case of death of landlord eviction order did not abate— Contract between the parties was enforceable against legal heirs or successor-in-interest of the original party and it did not abate with the death of the parties—Landlord had adduced cogent and worthy of credence evidence to substantiate his version—Where statement of landlord on oath was consistent with his averments made in the eviction petition then same would be sufficient for acceptance of ejectment petition—Right of property being a Fundamental Right had been protected—Right of ownership was superior than the right of tenancy—Findings of Rent Controller were based on correct appreciation of evidence—Tenant was directed to vacate demised premises within two months subject to payment of monthly rent—Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 CLC 717 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case JAWAHIR LAL VS MUHAMMAD ZAHID S.13—Ejectment petition—Personal bona fide need of landlord—Non-appearance of landlord as witness—Effect— tenant filed appeal against the order of Rent Controller whereby the eviction petition filed by landlord was allowed— Case of landlord was that he wanted the possession of rented premises for extention in his business and alternation in its structure—Validity—Attorney of landlord had recorded his statement that the rented premises was required for enhancement of business—Landlord was entitled to choose or pick any one of his properties for his personal use and suitability of the property could not be determined by the tenant—Contention of tenant that landlord himself had not appeared before the Rent Controller for recording of his statement had no force because the law did not prohibit for appointing any attorney for recording the statement on oath before the court—Mere non-appearance of the landlord had not effected his bona fide claim—Attorney was the son of landlord and his statement was straightforward confidence inspiring and was not shaken during cross-examination—Sole testimony of the landlord was sufficient to prove personal bona fide need—Rent Controller, after proper appraisal of material available on record had came to the right conclusion—Appeal, being devoid of merits, was dismissed. Citation Name: 2020 CLC 526 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD NADEEM VS ANJUMAN-E-NASIR-UL-AZA Ss. 13 & 14—Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 23 & 24—Eviction petition on behalf of attorney—Maintainability— Bona fide personal need of landlord Right of Property—Scope—Earlier ejectment petition having been dismissed for non-prosecution—Effect—Payment of Pagri—Effect—Eviction petition filed on behalf of landlord was accepted— Contention of tenant was that earlier eviction petition filed on behalf of landlord had been dismissed—Validity—If earlier eviction petition had been decided on merits then Rent Controller should reject the subsequent ejectment petition summarily, however, if earlier ejectment petition was decided on technical ground or was dismissed for nonprosecution without deciding the matter on merits then there would be no bar to file a fresh application on the same ground—Landlord earlier filed ejectment petition and same was dismissed for non-prosecution—Landlord had bona fide personal need of demised premises—Where statement of landlord on oath was consistent with the averments made in the ejectment application then same was sufficient for acceptance of eviction petition—Payment of any amount on account of pagri did not create tenancy in perpetuity and same could not operate as bar against landlord to seek eviction—Attorney had filed present eviction petition under the authority given by the landlord—Relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties—Right of property being a fundamental right had been protected— Right of ownership was superior to the right of tenancy—Tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises within a period of two months subject to payment of monthly rent—Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 PLD 83 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ERICK (ARICK) FEROZE VS PETHRES alias MITHO S. 13—West Pakistan Urban Rent Restrictions Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.5-A—Ejectment of tenant—Default in payment of rent—Bona fide personal need of landlord—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant— Words “requires it in good faith for his own occupation”—Scope—Landlord filed eviction petition on the grounds of default in payment of rent and for his personal bona fide need wherein he also sought recovery of enhanced monthly rent—Eviction petition was accepted on the ground of default in payment of rent and tenant was directed to vacate the premises within two months and pay outstanding enhanced rent—Validity—Tenant had failed to produce any evidence through which it could be inferred that petitioner was not his landlord—Nothing was on record that demised premises was not required to the landlord for his personal bona fide need—Words ‘requirement for personal bona fide occupation’ did not denote a ‘desire’—Desire for occupation could be denied but requirement of personal bona fide use could not be turned down in slipshod and cursory manner—Solitary statement of landlord unless proved contrary to the facts and evidence was sufficient to establish his personal bona fide requirement—Rent Controller had erred in law to enforce provision of S.5-A of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 which was not applicable to the present case being not part of Balochistan Statute—Rent Controller was not competent to direct the tenant to pay outstanding rent beyond the period of three years—Nothing was on record with regard to automatic enhancement of rent after every three years—Findings of Rent Controller with regard to outstanding amount of rent coupled with payment of previous arrear on enhanced rate were set aside—Tenant was directed to pay outstanding monthly rent from the date of institution for a period of three years only—Landlord for remaining outstanding amount might avail remedy as provided under the law—Appeal was disposed of, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 PLD 78 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ZAHID HUSSAIN KHAN VS SHAMS ULLAH Ss. 13 & 5—Ejectment of tenant—Default in payment of rent-Bona fide personal need of landlord—Rent Controller while accepting eviction petition on the ground of default in payment of rent directed landlord to approach the civil Court for recovery of arrears of rent and outstanding utility bills—Validity—Rent Controller was empowered to determine rent of premises and pass order for payment of arrears of rent for the period of three years from institution of eviction petition—Tenant was bound to pay utility bills regularly and Rent Controller could pass order for payment of outstanding utility bills—Landlord was not entitled for any enhanced rent rather he should approach the Rent Controller under S.5 of Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959—Landlord was entitled for arrears of rent but not beyond the period of three years from the date of filing of ejectment petition—Civil Court was competent to try cases for recovery of arrears of rent and utility bills but jurisdiction of Rent Controller was not barred under law- —Landlord had proved his entitlement for recovery of outstanding arrears of rent and utility bills but he was not entitled for enhanced monthly rent after every three years—Appeal was disposed of, accordingly. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 2094 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case IFTIKHAR KHAN VS SIKANDAR KHAN S. 13—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 79, 113 & 129(g)—Eviction of tenant—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested, facts admitted need not be proved, withholding best evidence—Scope—landlords claimed that the suit property was rented out to the tenant by their predecessor whereas tenant claimed that he had bought the suit property through agreement to sell from the predecessor of landlords—Validity—Tenant produced one marginal witness and notary public but none of them stated that the money changed hands in their presence—Recitals of the agreement to sell showed that entire sale consideration was paid in lump sum whereas the witnesses stated that sale consideration was paid in three installments—Tenant did not produce the second marginal witness without any plausible reason— landlords were not required to produce marginal witnesses of the rent deed as it was admitted by the tenant— Relationship between the parties as tenant and landlord stood proved—Rent Controller and Appellate Court had rightly appreciated the evidence on record—Constitutional petitions filed by tenant were dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 1516 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Syed YOUSAF ALI SHAH VS SHOAIB KHAN Ss. 13 & 14—Ejectment of tenant—Default in payment of rent—Bona fide personal need of landlord—‘Pagri’ amount, payment of—Effect—Earlier, ejectment petition filed on behalf of mother of landlord having been dismissed—Res judicata, principle of—Applicability— Tentative rent— Non-payment of— Effect— Landlord filed eviction petition on the ground of personal need which was accepted by the Rent Controller but Appellate Court dismissed the same— Validity—Question of personal need and default in payment of rent could not be static—Rejection of an earlier eviction petition would not be a bar under S.14 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959— Constructive res judicata would only apply when there were identical reasons and circumstances after earlier unsuccessful attempt— Subsequent ejectment petition could be filed subject to availability of changed situation and circumstances—No time limit could be fixed for changed circumstances and personal requirement–Personal need of landlord had to be genuine—Tenant had committed default in payment of rent which had provided a fresh cause of action to the landlord to file eviction petition—Landlord had personal bona fide need of demised premises and he was ready to give surety to hand over the shop in question to the tenant if he failed to establish his own business in the same—Personal need of landlord could not be defeated by adversely interpreting evidence to reach another conclusion as had been done by the Appellate Court—If landlord had failed to start his own business in the demised premises then rights of tenant had been protected under S.13 (4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959—Sole statement of landlord was sufficient to prove his bona fide personal need—Landlord had prerogative to choose business of his choice—Mere lack of experience and non-disclosure of nature of business would not disentitle the landlord from claiming ejectment of tenant—Tenant had not deposited tentative rent according to the direction of Rent Controller and his defence should have been struck off—Tenant had committed default in payment of rent and he was liable to be evicted from the demised premises—Tenant had neither claimed for return of pagri amount nor there was any direct evidence with regard to payment of the same—Plea of payment of pagri amount would not make tenancy in perpetuity when it had not been created by a registered instrument—Where amount of pagri had been treated as mutual arrangement between the parties then same had no legal sanctity and it could not be adjusted against rent which had to be paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of tenancy agreement—Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and that of Rent Controller was restored—Tenant was directed to vacate demised premises within one month and pay rent for defaulted period—Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 PLD 713 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASSAAN AHMED VS CIVIL JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (RENT), LAHORE Ss. 12, 8 & 9—Application for restoration of utility services by tenant—Defect in the tenancy—Effect—Deposit of fine—Scope—Tenant earlier filed application for seeking permission to deposit rent in the Court wherein he was ordered to deposit 5% fine of the annual value of rent—Rent Tribunal disposed of said application directing the tenant to deposit monthly rent in the Court—landlords, thereafter, disconnected utility services of the tenant and he filed an application for restoration of the same—Rent Tribunal had directed the tenant to deposit 5% fine in terms of S.9(a) of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, on the ground that it was a new application—Contention of tenant was that he had already deposited 5% fine in the earlier application and he could not be again burdened with the fine— Validity—Where tenancy between the parties was not in consonance with the provisions of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, Rent Tribunal could not entertain an application until and unless the requisite fine had been deposited by the party approaching the said forum—Provision of S.9 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, did not suggest that fine would be leviable against a party only for once—Imposition of fine under S.9 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, was to encourage registration of tenancy between the parties—If parties had not opted to bring the tenancy in conformity with the provisions of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, then they should face the consequences—Defect in tenancy would not be cured until and unless same was brought in conformity with the provisions of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009—Once the party had deposited fine even then it could be burdened with fine again, if he had approached the Rent Tribunal with a fresh application—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 2344 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ILYAS VS MUMTAZ BEGUM S.8—Suit for possession of immovable property— Admission—Withdrawal of—Effect—Suit land was inherited in favour of plaintiffs being widow and minor son of deceased—Defendant having possession of suit property being nephew of deceased filed earlier suit for declaration on the basis of gift against public-at-large which was ex parte decreed—Plaintiffs moved application for setting aside of said ex parte decree which was accepted with the consent of defendant wherein he admitted relationship of plaintiffs as widow and son of the allottee—Defendant thereafter withdrew the said suit and filed another suit against the plaintiffs on the basis of gift wherein he also admitted the plaintiffs as widow and son of the deceased—Said suit filed on behalf of defendant was dismissed and thereafter plaintiffs moved an ejectment petition against the defendant wherein he admitted the relationship of plaintiffs with the deceased—Plaintiffs could not prove relationship of landlord and tenant and eviction petition was dismissed and thereafter present suit was filed wherein defendant had denied the relationship of plaintiffs with the deceased—Suit filed on behalf of plaintiffs was decreed concurrently—Validity—Defendant had admitted the relationship of plaintiffs as widow and son of the allottee in the earlier litigations—Admission once made could not be withdrawn at any subsequent stage—Defendant was estopped to develop different stance other than the one already confirmed before the Court of law—Defendant had made allegations of illicit relationship of plaintiffs with the deceased allottee malafidely just for a defence to prolong his unauthorized possession—Defendant had lost his case on the basis of gift and he was bound to part with his possession forthwith—Real owners of suit property had been entangled in baseless litigation one after the other which practice was to be condemned—Defendant had defied the modesty of an old age widow and undermined the personality of her son while claiming him illegitimate child—Plaintiffs had right to independently proceed under the law against the defendant in that regard—Courts should be courageous to impose heavy costs against the defendant for his ill designs—Defendant had managed forged gift and asserted baseless allegations and prolonged his illegal possession over the suit property—Revision was dismissed with costs of Rupees 200,000/—Executing Court was directed to satisfy the decree as well as cost imposed herein within sixty days— Revision was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 854 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sh. SAEED UL HASSAN VS Sh. MOHAMMED IMRAN Ss. 15 & 2 (l) (iii)—Ejectment petition against sub-tenant—Maintainability—Demised premises was rented out by tenant in favour of sub-tenant—Eviction petition against sub-tenant was accepted concurrently— Validity— No written consent on the part of landlord in favour of tenant to induct sub-tenant was on record—When oral assertion had been rebutted by a written document then preference was to be given to the document—Sub-tenant was rented out demised premises by tenant—Constitutional petition of sub-tenant was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 851 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FAISAL IMTIAZ VS State Ss. 302(b), 380, 411 & 34—Qatl-i-amd, theft in dwelling house, dishonestly receiving stolen property, common intention—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Prosecution case was that during the course of dacoity in the house, brother of complainant was fired at by the assailants, who died, while currency amounting to Rs. one lac and five tolas golden ornaments were also missing—Ocular account of the occurrence had been furnished by tenant of the deceased—Said witness claimed that he along with his brother woke up early in the morning for fajjar prayers and they had minutely witnessed both the accused while talking to each other and subsequently on the asking of lady accused, co-accused made fire shot on the deceased and he was facilitated by co-accused in fleeing away from the scene of occurrence—Said witness along with his brother were most natural/independent witnesses of the occurrence; however, they were not cited as witnesses in the FIR despite the fact that they were tenants in the house and their landlord was murdered by the assailants in their presence—Said witnesses were not joined into proceedings qua preparation of inquest report—Record revealed that when the dead body was being evacuated to mortuary, tenants joined the proceedings—Said fact straightway hit the prosecution case—Witness of waj-takkar stated that when he was going to offer his Fajjar prayers in the nearby mosque, he had seen co-accused holding pistol while fleeing away from the scene of occurrence—However, it had come on record that said witness was resident of a colony and two Masjids were situated at a distance of half kilometre from his house while place of occurrence was at a distance of one kilometre from his house—Record showed that on the way to the house of the deceased no Masjid was situated which fact was admitted by said witness at the time of making his statement during the course of trial—Said fact created serious dent about the presence of said witness of waj-takkar at the place of occurrence as claimed by him— Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to advance any cogent and confidence inspiring evidence to establish link of the accused persons with the occurrence—Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court. Citation Name: 2020 MLD 226 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ISMAIL VS MUHAMMAD ASLAM Ss. 15 & 2(e)—Eviction petition—‘Pagri’ amount, payment of—Court below held that landlord was liable to return lump sum pagri amount of Rs. 500,000/- (Rs. 250,000/- for each shop) to the tenant—Validity—Half of the market value of shops had been paid as pagri to the landlord—Pagri amount paid for one shop was Rs. 75000/- and for other Rs. 250000/—Pagri amount was neither a security deposit nor the same could be adjusted against rent—Landlord could not be debarred from institution of eviction proceedings merely because pagri amount had been paid—Rent Tribunal while deciding eviction petition should have decided the issue of return or confiscation of amount of pagri— Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, in absence of any agreement to the contrary, did not recognize any automatic increase in the amount of pagri or its return at the prevailing market value of demised premises when eviction order was passed—No written agreement for return of pagri amount at 50% of prevailing market value of demised premises was on record—Exact amount of pagri paid at the time of tenancy had been established and tenant was bound to receive the same and not as 50% of present market value of the demised premises or any additional amount over and above pagri amount paid—Impugned order passed by the Court below was neither supported by record nor based on law which was set aside and pagri amount was reduced—Constitutional petition was disposed of, accordingly. Citation Name: 2020 MLD 226 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ISMAIL VS MUHAMMAD ASLAM Ss. 2(e) & 15—Eviction of tenant—Tenant had paid amount of Pagri to the landlord—Adjustment of pagri amount at the time of eviction—Scope—“Pagri”—Connotation. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 2237 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS Mst. HAFIZAN BEGUM S. 14—Ejectment of tenant—Delivery of vacant possession—Scope—Petitioner/ tenant assailed the concurrent findings of Rent Controller as well as Appellate Court wherein eviction application of the landlord filed under S.14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was allowed—Validity—Rent Controller as well as Appellate Court had exercised their powers as provided under the law—Petitioner in the matter was heard, evidence was got concluded and orders in accordance with jurisdiction were passed—Constitutional petition could not be treated as another appeal by re-appraisement of evidence and no element was shown whereby the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner were found to be jeopardized—Constitutional petition was dismissed. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 1967 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ANWAR AHMAD VS IQBAL AHMAD S. 17—Eviction of tenant—Personal need of landlord—Burden of proof—Scope—Landlord seeking eviction of his tenant on the ground of personal need cannot be deprived of such valuable and inalienable right provided to him by law merely on the ground that his spouse and/or any other member of his family owns other property(ies); the only burden on him is to prove that he requires the premises in good faith for his own use and occupation and he does not have any other property in the same vicinity to fulfill his such need—Law also permits the landlord to seek eviction of his tenant on the ground of personal need of his spouse and children. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 1932 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AZEEM VS Mst. RANI Ss. 15, 18 & 2(i)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 196 & 197—Eviction petition by attorney— Maintainability— Change of ownership of demised premises—Notice to the tenant—Default in payment of rent and utility charges— Bona fide personal need of landlord—Scope—Evasive denial by tenant—Effect—Ratification—Need of husband of landlady—Scope—Eviction petition was accepted concurrently— Validity—Landlady had not disowned the acts done/performed by her attorney—If eviction petition was filed by a person having no authority even then such defect could be ratified—Ejectment petition filed on behalf of attorney was not only competent but also maintainable— Evasive denials were no denials rather same could be construed as admission on the part of tenant—Tenant had failed to pay rent to the landlady through her attorney but he had deposited the same in the Court in the name of already deceased owner—Filing of eviction petition would amount to a notice under S.18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, despite that tenant had not paid rent to the landlady—Demised premises was required to the landlady for her personal use—Landlady was not prohibited to seek eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal need of her husband, which fell within the ambit of “personal need”—Tenant had committed default in payment of rent and electricity charges—No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below—Impugned orders had been passed in accordance with law, in circumstances— Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 1886 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case WASEEM KHAN VS ASIM HUSSAIN Ss. 15 & 2(i)—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 53-A—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.132—Ejectment of tenant—Default in payment of rent—Sale agreement— Effect— Eviction petition was accepted concurrently— Validity— Tenant had committed default with regard to payment of rent, electricity and water charges—Tenant had failed to file written reply and produce evidence to confront the witness of landlords—Assertions of landlords had been admitted by the tenant, in circumstances—Fact which had been deposed in examination-in-chief and not crossexamined should be deemed to have been admitted—Contents of document filed with the plaint or ejectment petition should be presumed as correct until and unless satisfactory material or evidence had been produced against the same– -Mere sale agreement did not confer any right of ownership—Ejectment order could be executed against a person who had possessed demised premises through tenant—Concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below could be interfered with by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction when there was any material illegality, irregularity, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence on record—Orders passed by the Courts did not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 1741 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mir AZIZ ULLAH KHAN VS MUHAMMAD SABIR S. 17—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A—Ejectment of tenant—Default in payment of rent—Bona fide personal need of landlord—Sale agreement in favour of tenant—Suit for specific performance of contract filed on behalf of tenant— Effect— Fair trial—Requirements—Tenant refused to receive Court notice and he was proceeded exparte—Eviction petition was accepted and tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises within sixty days— Validity—Tenant had to first vacate the premises in case order for his eviction had been passed by the Rent Controller even suit for specific performance with regard to demised premises was pending—Tenant would be entitled for repossession of the demised premises if said suit was decreed—No sufficient cause had been shown on behalf of tenant for not appearing before the Rent Controller—Tenant had not been condemned unheard—Tenant had committed wilful and deliberate default in payment of rent and in contesting the case on merit—Opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the tenant but he himself remained absent—Right of fair trial could be extended to those who surrendered before the Court of law with honesty—Tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises—Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 561 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case AIRPORT HOTEL, HOTEL SKYROOMS (PVT.) LTD. VS Khawaja AHSAN MEHMOOD Ss. 17, 27 & 28—Ejectment of tenant—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant—Rent Controller dismissed ejectment petition in a summary manner with special costs—Validity—Rent Controller had no power to award compensation and he could only impose fine to the extent of Rs. 500/- in case of contravention and/or noncompliance of any of the provisions of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 or the Rules made thereunder— Eviction petition, in the present case, had been dismissed by holding that same was not maintainable as relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist—Landlord had not contravened or failed to comply with any of the provisions of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 or the Rules made thereunder—No fine under S. 28 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 could be imposed upon the landlord, in circumstances—Special costs had been imposed by the Rent Controller by holding that landlord had wasted time of the Court—Rent Controller had no power to impose special costs while dismissing eviction petition even if it was not maintainable for the reason stated in the impugned order—Findings recorded by the Rent Controller were arbitrary and illegal and he was bound to decide the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, if objection was raised—Rent Controller had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law—Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 61 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case SAEED MAZHAR ALI VS Mrs. AROOSA MUBASHIR Ss. 6, 17, 24 & 30—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 6(e)—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 175(3)—Eviction of tenant—Inherent jurisdiction of High Court—Scope—Tenant had stopped paying the monthly rent to the landlord claiming that he had entered into agreement to sell regarding demised property with the landlord— Appellant/ tenant challenged the competency of the Additional Cantonment Executive Officer as Rent Controller before High Court claiming that no notification was issued for his appointment as Rent Controller—Validity— Question of inherent jurisdiction, normally a pure question of law, could be raised at any stage and non-raising thereof before the lowest forum (waiver) would not be sufficient for ousting the jurisdiction of appellate forum from examining the same—Challenge to inherent jurisdiction would never earn status of ‘new plea’ which normally was not permissible to be taken at later stages—Section 6 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 stipulated that appointment of Rent Controller required only issuance of notification which, however, had not been made subject to ‘consultation of Chief Justice’ rather the absolute competence had been vested with the Federal Government to appoint a person as Rent Controller or Additional Rent Controller by issuing notification in official gazette—Court could not add or delete anything in or out of a provision—Scope of interpretation was to make a bona fide attempt to unfold ambiguous words or phrases without disturbing the object and intention of the Legislature rather legally every attempt even while interpreting such ambiguous thing, the intention and object of the legislation had to be protected—Section 6 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 itself had given absolute and exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Government to ‘appoint’ a person as Rent Controller or Additional Rent Controller which had not been limited to any condition including that such person could not be a public servant rather such appointed person had been clothed as public servant under S.30 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963—Issuance of notification by Federal Government thereby declaring any person as Rent Controller or Additional Rent Controller would be sufficient compliance of S. 6 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 and such person would stand designated as such even if same was ex-officio—Legally issued notification would continue holding the field unless otherwise so expressly intended—Notification prima facie was not subject to any time limitation nor there was placed anything on record that said notification was either recalled or cancelled etc.—High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction could declare any law or custom or usage having the force of law as void—High Court observed that proceedings were rightly entertained and decided by the Additional Rent Controller as subject matter undisputedly fell within the area of the Cantonment—Appellant, in the present case, admitted his entry into subject property as tenant but later claimed to have purchased the same through an agreement to sell—Appellant admittedly, had stopped paying the monthly rent in wake of his undermined status of purchaser which act alone was sufficient for his eviction—No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller, appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2020 PLD 352 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Dr. HASAN FATIMA JAFFERY VS ROYAL SAUDI CONSULATE KARACHI S. 86-A—Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act (IX of 1972), Art. 43—State Immunity Ordinance (VI of 1981), Ss. 5 & 7—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 110—Diplomatic immunity, exceptions to—Arrears and default in payments—Limitation—Plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of money and declaration on grounds that defendants had caused damage to property and had defaulted in payment of rent and utility bills—Plea raised by defendants was that they enjoyed diplomatic immunity and suit was not maintainable—Validity—Transaction in question was between plaintiffs as landlords and defendants as tenant in its official capacity as Consulate General of Saudi Arabia— Privilege of diplomatic immunity could not be extended to defendants in such circumstances and in view of provisions of State Immunity Ordinance, 1981 and evidence which had come on record—Suit was filed on the time when utility bills remained unpaid and as per Art.110 of Limitation Act, 1908 three years’ time was mentioned for recovery of arrears of rent—Non-payment of utility bills also formed part of arrears of rent, therefore, suit was within time and not a time barred claim—Onus had shifted on defendants to prove their defence that after termination of lease period as per lease agreement, possession was handed over to plaintiffs and defendants were not liable to pay any amount either towards rental, utility bills or damage—Plaintiffs being lawful owners/landlords in order to get their legitimate claim settled by defendants, were made to go through protracted pre-litigation negotiations and then litigation thus plaintiffs were at least entitled for general damages—High Court awarded damages and compensation to plaintiffs payable by defendants jointly and severally—Suit was decreed accordingly. Citation Name: 2020 MLD 7 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ABDUL HAFEEZ VS MOHAMMAD YOUSUF S. 15—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 23—Constitutional petition—Ejectment of tenant—Bona fide personal need of landlord—Proof—Rent Controller passed order for eviction of tenant on the ground of bona fide personal need of landlord but Appellate Court set aside the said order—Validity—Landlord had right to acquire and deal with the property in the manner best suited to him—Tenant had no right to disentitle the landlord of his right to acquire, deal and possess his property which right was otherwise guaranteed by Art. 23 of the Constitution—Landlord in eviction matters was only required to establish that his requirement was reasonable and same did not appear to be mala fide one—Initial burden in such eventuality would stand discharged when landlord having stepped into witness box reiterated on oath the reasonableness for such occupation—Such deposition of landlord would carry presumption of truth and strong evidence would be required to rebut the same—Landlord was only required to establish reasonableness of his need of demised premises for his and his family occupation—Landlord had reiterated the pleaded circumstances on oath which were not rebutted by the tenant—Findings recorded by the Appellate Court were not sustainable, in circumstances—Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and that of Rent Controller was restored—Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 PLD 284 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case GHULAM ALI VS PROVINCE OF SINDH through Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh Preamble, Ss. 23, 24, 27, 29, 30 & 34—Sindh Tenancy Rules, 2002, R. 3—Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 175, 202 & 203—Vires of provisions of Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950—Terminating / ejecting tenant from tenancy—Fundamental rights, preservation of—Petitioner was tenant (Hari) of respondent who was forcefully dispossessed from his property with his house being demolished—Validity—Purpose of Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950 was meant to determine rights and liabilities between two independent parties, i.e., agricultural tenants and landlords—Word ‘regulate’ in Preamble of Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950 was not of any substance so as to prejudice term ‘determination’ which was duty of Tenancy Tribunal—Duty always had created a ‘right’ hence it was the defined ‘duties’ of tenant/Hari which earned him certain rights which was not limited to receive what tenant/Hari was entitled from cultivation only but it included a right to enjoy protection against ejectment/termination of tenancy—After separation of power of judiciary from the Executive, the Assistant Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner and the Commissioner/Collector did not have jurisdiction to make judicial determination under Ss. 27, 29 & 30 of Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950—To such extent provisions of Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950, were ultra vires the Arts. 175, 202 & 203 of the Constitution—High Court directed that till such time necessary amendments were made to Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950, proceedings under Ss. 27, 29 & 30 of Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950, were to be transferred to District Court concerned where District Judge would assign tenancy applications under S. 27 of Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950 to Civil Court exercising territorial jurisdiction and appeals and revisions pending under Ss. 29 & 30 of Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950, would be decided by concerned District Judge or Additional District Judge—High Court set aside orders passed by Assistant Commissioner and Additional Commissioner under Ss. 27 & 29 of Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950 and directed that tenancy application under S. 27 of Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950, filed by petitioner would be decided afresh by Civil Judge—Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2020 PLD 284 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case GHULAM ALI VS PROVINCE OF SINDH through Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh S.2 (2) & (5)—tenant and tenancy (Hari)—tenant, rights of—Scope—Labouring (tenancy) is a contract where one agrees to provide his services (doing hard physical work) against certain considerations which, in no law, is an offence till the time the object (labour) is legal—Purpose of labouring could be nothing but to earn a livelihood for needs of one’s self, including his family but same must never be at the cost of his liberty, life and dignity which otherwise are considered unalienable rights of a free man, which a man even with his consent, cannot trade—Where one becomes a Hari (peasant) he otherwise agrees to provide his services against certain consideration which landlord/Zamindar is always legally obliged to provide—Existence of a contract between the two (Hari/peasant and Zamindar/landlord) wherein rights and obligations are presumably agreed—Mere naming of such rights and obligations as Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950, were never of much importance as the same were already presumably agreed between two individuals unless Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950, had provided mechanism of enforcement of rights and obligations coupled with an action in case of breach. Citation Name: 2020 CLC 392 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHAMSHAD SULAIMAN VS Mst. ALMAS BEGUM S.15—Ejectment petition—Bona fide personal need of landlord—Contention that landlady did not require the demised premises in good faith but wanted to sell as such purpose did not amount to bona fide need—Validity—Point of selling the premises by landlady was not taken by tenant before two forums below—No such intention was mentioned by landlady in her affidavit in evidence, wherein she had taken plea that she needed the premises to house her daughter—Landlady was not cross-examined on that point; tenant could not take refuge from something mentioned in the pleadings—Landlady was a retired ailing old lady as such her intention that she needed her daughter to be settled in demised premises, appeared to be coherent and reasonable—Owner could sell her/his property at any moment even without getting the same vacated—No doubt under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, rented premises could not be vacated solely on ground of selling the same but it was nowhere mentioned in the said Ordinance that after getting the premises vacated owner could not sell the same—Landlady had established her personal need—Findings of two courts below did not require any interference. Citation Name: 2020 CLC 254 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case NIZAR NOOR VS AMEER ALI Ss. 2(i) & 15(2)(ii)— Ejectment petition—Default in payment of utility bills—Effect—landlords sought ejectment of tenant on grounds of non-payment of utility bills— Rent Controller directed tenants to vacate premises but Lower Appellate Court set aside the same— Validity— Lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate that it was a statutory tenancy and as such rights and liabilities of both the parties were to be governed by Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979— Term ‘rent’ under section 2(i) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 included “water charges”, “electricity” charges and “such other charges that were payable by tenant” but were unpaid— landlords never pleaded or claimed that tenants were liable to pay electricity charges directly to them instead of paying same to the electric company— Tenants committed default in payment of electricity charges and because of their default, electricity supply of demised premises was disconnected— Lower Appellate Court wrongly held that landlords failed in proving that tenants had committed willful default in payment of electricity charges as electricity meter was not in name of landlords and demised premises was handed over to tenants without electricity— High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, directed tenants to vacate demised premises and to handover vacant and peaceful possession to landlords and set aside judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court—Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2020 CLC 60 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case SULTAN-UL-ULOOM, MIR USMAN ALI KHAN ACADEMY VS ANIS-UR-REHMAN S.15(3)—-Eviction petition—Grounds being reconstruction of premises and bona fide personal need of landlord— Right of tenant after reconstruction of building—Rent Controller ordered eviction—Appellate Court maintained order of eviction with directions to the landlord to demolish building within three months, erect the new building with shops on ground floor within one year and to hand over possession of new shops to the tenant—Validity—Held, that landlord was not obliged to construct new building according to the need, requirement or desire of tenant especially when possession of the demised premises was sought by the landlord also on ground of personal need with a specific purpose—Keeping in view the aims and objectives of the landlord and its purpose and requirement for constructing the new building, which were not disputed and findings in respect whereof had attained finality, it would be unjust to allow any kind of commercial business, activity or shop in the new building to be constructed for the sole purpose of promotion of education and other literary objects—Where the ground of reconstruction was coupled with the personal need of the landlord and the need was of such nature that the tenant could not be accommodated in newly constructed/erected building, the tenant would not be entitled to seek restoration of possession of the rented premises under subsections (3) and/or (4) of S.15 of the Ordinance—-Right of the tenant to seek restoration of possession would come into play if the reconstructed building was of the same type or character and was suitable for the same use as was the old building—Eviction order passed by Rent Controller was restored. Citation Name: 2020 CLCN 51 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case SHAM KUMAR VS ULFAT SHAHEEN S. 17—Ejectment of tenant—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant—Default in payment of rent– -Effect—Rent Controller accepted ejectment petition and directed the tenant to vacate the demised premises— Validity—Tenant had admitted that he had paid rent to the husband of landlady—Relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties—Tenant had not denied the ownership of landlady and he had entered in the demised premises as tenant—Tenant had committed default in payment of rent in the present case— Tenant had neither sent rent to the landlady or her husband through money order nor deposited the same in the Court– -Tenant was directed to pay the defaulted rent and vacate the demised premises within fifteen days—Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 CLCN 29 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case SHAFIQ-UD-DIN VS Mst. SHAHIDA GHAZAL S. 15—Ejectment of tenant—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant—Default in payment of rent—Bona fide personal need of landlord—Eviction petition was accepted concurrently—Validity—Relationship of landlady and tenant existed between the parties—Tenant had committed default in payment of rent—Concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below could not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 2269 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case UMER TANVEER BUTT VS MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Ss. 17, 2(j) & 5—Ejectment of tenant—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant—Lease agreement—Onus to prove—Claim of sale agreement by tenant in his favour—Scope—Ex-parte proceedings having been set aside— Effect—Document produced as “mark” by the party—Evidentiary value—Provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat and Civil Procedure Code, applicability of—Ex-parte proceedings were conducted against the tenant and landlord submitted affidavit-in-evidence and copy of lease agreement was produced in the statement of his counsel—Tenant thereafter moved application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings and same was accepted—Rent Controller framed issue with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and while relying upon the documents produced by the landlord prior to setting aside of ex-parte proceedings allowed eviction petition—Validity—Landlord was bound to prove that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties—Once Rent Controller had framed issue and placed burden of proof on a party then he could not absolve such party from such burden—Parties were expected to lead evidence in accordance with the onus placed at the time of framing of issues—Landlord had not applied for the amendment of issue so that onus of proof could be placed on the tenant—Mere fact that tenant had not been able to prove that he was owner of demised premises was not sufficient to accept eviction petition—Landlord should have proved that tenant was bound to pay rent as a consideration for possession of demised premises through rent receipts or witnesses in support of eviction petition—Tenant had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell during pendency of the ejectment petition—Mere fact that tenant had filed a suit for specific performance could not be a valid ground for allowing him to remain in possession on the demised premises—Agreement to sell neither created nor purported to create any right or interest in such property nor it transferred ownership to the vendee—Agreement to sell was not a title document and could not be treated as an alienation—Unless and until suit for specific performance was decreed, tenant could not claim to have become owner of suit premises—Civil Court was to determine whether or not tenant had purchased the demised premises—Ejectment proceedings could not be stayed or stalled on the plea that tenant was holding an agreement to sell—Courts below had relied upon the copy of lease agreement produced by the counsel of landlord before setting aside of ex-parte proceedings—Documents produced by the counsel of landlord prior to setting aside of ex-parte proceedings were not resubmitted in evidence—Courts below had erred by not appreciating that evidence produced prior to the ex-parte proceedings having been set aside was liable to be discarded—Nothing was on record as to why lease agreement was not produced by the landlord with eviction petition or affidavit-in-evidence—Copy of lease agreement was not tendered in evidence—Tenant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and had submitted that lease agreement was fake and bogus—Landlord should have produced original lease agreement to prove relationship of landlord and tenant, in circumstances—Landlord had not produced the marginal witnesses of lease agreement to prove its execution—Proceedings before Rent Controller were in the nature of an inquiry and provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and Civil Procedure Code, 1908 were not applicable to the said proceedings—Relationship of landlord and tenant had been denied by the tenant and sole basis of eviction was a copy of rent agreement—Original lease agreement had not been produced in evidence, without a plausible explanation for not producing the same—Rent Controller while setting aside ex-parte proceedings had not saved the evidence produced by the landlord or document submitted by his counsel—Nothing was on record that landlord had relied upon the documents having earlier been produced by his counsel—Proceedings taken from the stage of nonappearance of a party would become ineffective upon setting aside the same—Ex-parte evidence recorded after passing the order to proceed ex-parte was liable to be discarded and proceedings should have been taken afresh in presence of tenant, in circumstances—Court could not form its opinion on the material which was not legal and reliable evidence—Landlord’s ex-parte evidence and the documents produced by his counsel could not bind the tenant after setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings—Copy of lease agreement produced by landlord’s counsel prior to ex-parte proceedings having been set aside could not be termed as legal evidence—Courts below had misread the evidence and committed jurisdictional irregularity by holding that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant on the basis of copy of lease agreement produced by the landlord’s counsel prior to setting aside of ex-parte proceedings—Photocopy of a document having been produced as “marked” had no evidentiary value— Agreement for letting out a building or land was to be in writing—Landlord had failed to discharge the onus of proving relationship of landlord and tenant as he had not exhibited the rent agreement allegedly executed between the parties—Rent Controller in absence of relationship of landlord and tenant had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter and owner of the property had other remedies to seek eviction of an illegal occupant—Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside and matter was remanded to the Rent Controller for decision afresh— Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 1469 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case NOOR AHMED ZEESHAN VS Ch. ABDUL RAUF S. 17—Ejectment of tenant—Default in payment of rent—Bona fide personal need of landlord—Scope—Eviction petition was accepted on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal need of landlord—Validity—Tenant dispatched rent through money order but same was late for two months due to which landlord did not receive the same—Tenant had committed default, in circumstances—Demised premises was required to the landlord for his son who was jobless—Sole testimony of landlord with regard to choice of his property and personal bona fide need was sufficient for ejectment of tenant—No illegality had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 932 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AZHAR VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-VII, WEST, ISLAMABAD S. 17—Eviction of tenant—Bona fide need of landlord—Eviction through attorney—Periodic tenancy—Petitioners were co-owners of property who filed for eviction of respondents for bona fide personal need—Contention of respondents was that they were not tenants under petitioners and that eviction was not filed properly—Rent Controller allowed eviction but Lower Appellate Court denied the same—Validity—Where there was admission of relationship and it was in specific words, same was an admission of fact—Rent Controller and Lower Appellate Court rightly observed that respondents were tenants under the petitioners—Parties failed to produce original lease agreement but otherwise relationship was admitted—Tenancy could be treated as periodic based on frequency with which tenants paid rent—If landlord filed eviction application in such tenancies that application, meant that tenancy stood expired as landlord did not wish to continue with same—Expiry of lease was a valid ground for eviction of tenant under Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001—Personal bona fide need was a valid ground and also petitioners were well within their rights as co-owners in property to file an eviction application and same did not have to be filed by owners of property—High Court allowed eviction application filed by petitioners on grounds of personal bona fide need and expiry of lease agreement—High Court directed respon-dents to vacate premises—Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Citation Name: 2020 MLD 522 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS Syed MUHAMMAD TAHIR ZAHOOR O. VII, R. 2—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)—Suit for recovery of money (rent of rented premises by landlord)—Onus of proof—Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of amount of utility bill and arrears of rent which was decreed—Validity—When landlord had deposed that tenant had not paid rent then onus to prove that rent was paid would shift upon the tenant—Tenant should prove that he had paid the rent through reliable evidence—Where a party had withheld the best evidence, it would be presumed that said party had some sinister motive behind it—Tenantdefendant had failed to prove that he had paid rent of demised premise—Defendant could not escape the liability to pay rent up to the period when possession of suit house was handed over to the plaintiffs—Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 CLC 249 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case JAHANGIR HUSSAIN VS NEGHAT REHMAN Ss. 17 & 2(g)—Eviction petition by co-owner—Maintainability—Personal bona fide need of one of the landlords— Effect—Petition for eviction by co-owner was dismissed by the Courts below without recording evidence—Validity— Co-owner of rented premises had right to file eviction petition—Mere execution of lease deed by one of the co-owners by itself did not deprive the remaining co-owners of their legal right which accrued through operation of law— Eviction petition by the co-owner who had not executed lease deed was maintainable—Personal bona fide need of one of the landlords could be a valid ground for filing eviction petition—tenant was bound to pay rent to the landlords in proportion to their respective shares in the demised premises unless the landlords had authorized one amongst them or a third party/attorney to receive rent—Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside and matter was remanded to the Rent Controller for decision in accordance with law—Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 SCMR 627 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ABDUL LATIF VS PARMACIE PLUS Ss. 7(5) & 17— Eviction of tenant—Rent determined between the parties— Scope— Prohibition contained under S. 7(5) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963—Scope—Tenancy agreement was for a period of eleven months, and one of the clauses of the agreement stipulated that rent shall be increased by seven percent after every eleven months—When the period of eleven months expired and the rent became due, the tenant refused to remit rent with the seven percent increase on the basis that such increase was prohibited by S. 7(5) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (‘the Act’) unless a period of three years had elapsed—Held, that in the present case, seven percent increase after every eleven months of tenancy had been agreed upon between the parties, which was to be treated as the rent determined by an agreement between the landlord and tenant—Such rate of rent remained unaffected by the bar contained in S. 7(5) of the Act, which only prohibited unilateral increase within a period of three years—Only way to challenge a rate of rent agreed upon with the consent of the parties was by moving the Rent Controller to fix fair rent under the provisions of rent law and not otherwise—In the present case no application for fixation of fair rent had been moved by the tenant, therefore, the consequence of non-payment of agreed rent within the period prescribed by law would amount to commission of default in the payment of rent and would make it liable for eviction—In the present case as the tenant failed to pay the rent in terms of the agreed increase in rent agreed upon in the tenancy agreement, it was liable to be evicted—Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 SCMR 627 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ABDUL LATIF VS PARMACIE PLUS S. 7(5)—Increase in fair rent—“landlord prohibited from increasing rent unilaterally before expiry of a period of three years” [section 7(5) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963]—Scope and meaning—Parties were free to agree to a fixed rate of rent or a rate that was variable to be increased either by a certain amount or by a certain percentage of the existing rent after a specified period of time, and there was no prohibition in law in such regard—Periodical increases agreed between the parties under the tenancy agreement had to be regarded as the rent determined by an agreement between the landlord and the tenant within the meaning of S. 7(5) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (‘the Act’)—Prohibition contained in S. 7(5) of the Act only meant that no unilateral increase to the surprise of the tenant was permissible before the expiry of three years—Increase, which was not unilateral but with the consent of both the parties could not be subsequently disputed by the tenant unless it was called in question through an application made for fixation of fair rent—What was prohibited under S. 7(5) of the Act was that no unilateral increase was to be made beyond what was determined under the tenancy agreement, be it fixed or variable rate—Only in circumstances where there was unilateral increase in rent or where fair rent had been fixed by a Court of Controller of Rents that the rent could not be increased unless a period of three years had elapsed. Citation Name: 2019 PLD 113 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case DAWOOD KHAN VS SULTAN MUHAMMAD Ss. 13 & 13-A—Ejectment of tenant—Change of ownership—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant—Default in payment of rent—Effect—Eviction petition was dismissed on the ground that petitioner had failed to prove relationship of landlord and tenant—Validity—Demised premises had been mutated in favour of petitioner and other legal heirs through inheritance mutation—Rent Controller had failed to appreciate that eviction petition itself was to be regarded as notice under S.13-A of Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959— Respondent was a tenant in the demised premises and his status would remain unchanged—Mere denial of relationship of landlord and tenant would not change the status of respondent as tenant of the demised premises—Coowner could competently file eviction petition against a tenant—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the respondent with the petitioner was contumacious making him liable for eviction from the demised premises forthwith- –Impugned order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside, in circumstances—Eviction petition was accepted with the direction to the tenant to hand over vacant possession of demised premises to the landlord forthwith—Tenant was directed to pay monthly rent of demise premises to the landlord for the last three years—Landlord might approach the Court of civil jurisdiction for recovery of such arrears of monthly rent—Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 757 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Syed NAEEM SHAH VS Khawaja ZAHOOR IQBAL S. 13—Ejectment of tenant—Default in payment of rent—Striking off defence—Recovery of defaulted rent— Procedure—Rent Controller passed order for deposit of monthly rent before 15th of each month—Tenant did not cross-examine the witnesses and his defence was struck-off—Rent Controller accepted eviction petition on the ground of default and personal need and tenant was directed to deposit defaulted rent—Validity—Tenant did not comply with the order passed by the Rent Controller for deposit of rent before 15th of each month—Delay of single day in deposit of rent without any explanation was sufficient to strike-off defence of tenant—Tenant was provided opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of landlord but he intentionally opted not to cross-examine them on the ground that he had filed constitutional petition before High Court—Tenant was afforded opportunity to produce evidence but he failed and his defence was struck-off—Conduct of tenant remained contumacious and he had been delaying the matter on one or the other pretext—Defence of tenant had rightly been struck-off in circumstances—Section 13 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 did not authorize the Rent Controller for passing final order/ decree against tenant for recovery of defaulted rent—Rent Controller could pass order for deposit of arrears of rent and in case of default could strike-off defence of tenant but had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for recovery of defaulted rent—Landlord could file a suit for recovery of said rent before Court of competent jurisdiction— Impugned judgments passed by the Courts below were set aside to the extent of direction for payment of rent—Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 671 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAROON ABBASI VS JAMIL RABBANI S. 17—Ejectment petition—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant—Defence, striking off—Scope—Landlord filed ejectment petition on the ground of default and sub-letting—Rent Controller directed the tenant to file written statement, who requested the Court to first dispose of his application for summary rejection of ejectment petition wherein he had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant—Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition and ordered ejectment of tenant—Validity—Rent Controller while passing order under S. 17(8), Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 could not act mechanically but had to consider both, the plea of landlord as well as the defence offered by the tenant—Rent Controller, in the present case, had, without waiting for the written reply of tenant, passed order under S. 17(8) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963; without giving any opportunity to the tenant to explain his cause qua putting forward his defence—When tenant had denied relationship of landlord and tenant, Rent Controller was to frame preliminary issue on the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, however, in case landlord established the relationship in affirmative to the satisfaction of the Rent Controller then the same shall follow ejectment order against the tenant—Before striking off the defence of tenant no notice was issued to tenant which was a mandatory requirement before passing an order in that regard—Case was remanded to the Rent Controller with direction to frame preliminary issue regarding existence of relationship between the parties—Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 MLD 1991 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GUL SHER ABAT KHAN VS MUMTAZ ALI KHAN S. 13—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 115—Eviction petition—Bona fide personal need of landlord—Default in payment of rent—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by tenant—Scope—Respondents/landlords filed ejectment petition wherein they had claimed that tenant had committed default in payment of monthly rent and that the suit shop was required for their personal need—Appellate court accepted the appeal and directed the tenant to vacate the premises within a period of 3 months—Validity—Petitioner/tenant stressed that he had purchased part of suit property on the basis of registered deed which in fact was a withdrawal of any encumbrance relating to some part of suit property in possession of the tenant—Tenant had asserted his possession as a mortgagee—Assertions made by tenant showed that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties—Tenant had dragged landlords in unnecessary litigation on the oral pretext of being co-sharer—Case of tenant fell within the purview of Art. 115, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 which estopped tenant from denying title of a landlord once he entered into possession as such—Constitutional petition by tenant was dismissed in limine. Citation Name: 2019 MLD 1991 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GUL SHER ABAT KHAN VS MUMTAZ ALI KHAN S. 13(6)—Eviction petition—Tentative rent order—Scope—Rent Controller, after receiving written reply would pass an order for deposit of tentative rent by the tenant but if the tenant makes default in the compliance of such order his defence shall be struck off and the landlord shall be put into possession without further proceedings. Citation Name: 2019 PLD 227 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case ASLAM KHAN VS FAWAD AKHTAR S. 13—Ejectment of tenant—Expiry of rent agreement—“Acceptance by silence”, doctrine of—Applicability— Eviction petition was accepted on the ground of expiry of rent agreement—Validity—Relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties—Tenant was occupying the demised premises on the strength of rent agreement—Said agreement was for one year but tenant after its expiry was continuously paying monthly rent without any objection from the landlord—Landlord was satisfied from the rent so paid to him—Doctrine of “acceptance by silence” was applicable in the present case—Tenant had not defaulted in the payment of rent— Landlord had acceptd the increased rent from the tenant for more than four years and he could not retract from such position—Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside and eviction petition was dismissed— Constitutional petition was allowd, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 YLRN 44 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR REHMAN VS State S. 498—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 380 & 34—Theft in building, tent or vessel, common intention— Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of—Mala fide of complainant—Scope—Jurisdiction of High Court to grant pre-arrest bail—Scope—Petitioners (three in number) allegedly committed theft and took away Notary Register from the office of complainant, an advocate by profession— Petitioners included Chowkidar of a school and In-charge Record Room D.C. Office who contended that a dispute existed between petitioner (Chowkidar) and the complainant who were not only landlord and tenant per se but having a joint Bank account also—Complainant contended that High Court had no jurisdiction to decide bail before arrest as petitioners had not approached Sessions Court first—Validity—High Court had the powers to entertain and admit persons to bail before arrest, within the contemplation of S.498, Cr.P.C, especially where reasonable grounds existed, such as prima facie case, mala fide, ulterior motives, apprehension of arrest and maltreatment by the investigating agency or any other cause which would eventually cause humiliation, irreparable loss and harm to accused—Record revealed that the complainant, in one day, submitted to the concerned S.H.O three separate applications for the occurrence varying the names of accused—No direct evidence was available against petitioners regarding the alleged theft from the complainant’s office—Record also showed that complainant was also landlord of petitioner (Chowkidar) and that earlier a case, under S.489-F, P.P.C., was registered against petitioner (Chowkidar) by a person whose counsel was the complainant of the present case—Father of the complainant in said case appeared before the Court and belied the version of the complainant—Court, in said case, had observed that petitioner (Chowkidar) was falsely implicated in the case with mala fide intention of the complainant—Mala fide on part of complainant was palpable on the face of record and petitioners had been involved in the present case with ulterior motive —-Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners was confirmed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2800 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), RAWALPINDI DIVISION Rr. 4 (5) & 7—Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115), Para. 25—Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Ss. 8 & 9—Ejectment of tenant— Revisional jurisdiction of Commissioner— Scope— Suit for ejectment of tenant was decreed by the Tehsildar/Assistant Commissioner and appeal was dismissed by the Collector but Additional Commissioner (Revenue) set aside the said orders—Contention of petitioners was that Additional Commissioner had no authority to entertain the revision petition—Validity—Revisional jurisdiction did vest with the Commissioner who might at any time of his own or on a petition made in that behalf to him by any aggrieved tenant within fifteen days of the impugned order call for the record of any case disposed of by or proceedings pending with any Assistant Collector or a Collector subordinate to him—Right of revision was available only to a tenant and not to landlord—Order passed by the Commissioner would be final—Revision petition, in the present case, was entertained by Additional Commissioner who did not figure in the scheme of Rule 7 of Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977—Additional Commissioner had been bestowed with the authority to exercise any of the powers and discharge any of the duties conferred or imposed on the Commissioner— Additional Commissioner could decide the revision petition and order passed by him could not be termed as coram non judice—Impugned order as well as order of Collector and Assistant Collector could not sustain being in oblivion of R. 4(5) of Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977—Assistant Collector was bound to dispose of the complaint within sixty days of its receipt and failure to decide the same within stipulated period would attract the automatic consequences provided in the said R. 4(5) of Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977—Matter should have been transferred in the same manner as in the original Court—Proceedings conducted by the Assistant Collector after expiry of sixty days were of no effect as he had become functus officio on expiry of sixty days and he was precluded to lay its hand on the said suit after the target date—Impugned order was illegal and unlawful and superstructure built thereon would automatically fall to the ground—Impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities were set aside being illegal and unlawful—Ejectment suit should be deemed to be pending before the Collector concerned who should proceed with the same accordingly—Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 1570 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MAIRAJ DIN VS MUHAMMAD AZAM S. 15—Ejectment petition—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant—Scope—Petitioners/tenants contended that the demised property was Shamlat-e-Deh and they were in its occupation since the year 1960— Respondent/ landlord contended that he, along with other legal heirs, had a valid title over the demised premises— Validity—Petitioners had failed to establish their claim, regarding Shamlat-e-Deh, through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence— Petitioners, admittedly, filed independent suit for declaration which was dismissed for nonproduction of evidence—Respondent, on the contrary, in order to establish his claim over the demised premises, produced Fards Jamabandys, Form PT-10 and receipts of payment of property tax and there was nothing on record in the rebuttal—Petitioners, merely on the basis of electricity and sui gas bills etc., could not legitimize their possession over the demised premises as owners because a tenant could also get installed such connections in his name—Record revealed that presently respondent, along with others, had a valid title of the demised premises and in absence of anything contrary to the same, petitioners’ possession over the property would be presumed as of a tenant—Appellate Court after due appreciation of the evidence available on record had rightly arrived at a conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties —Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 CLC 1777 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HANIF VS SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE/RENT CONTROLLER Ss.15 & 19—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—Ejectment of tenant—Filing of ejectment application—Requirements—Provisions of S.19 of the Act are directory—Non-filing of affidavits of witnesses by the landlord before the Rent Tribunal along with ejectment petition would not prejudice any of the rights of the tenant- –Complete order-sheet having not been appended with the constitutional petition, High Court declined to remark on the observations of the Rent Tribunal—Objection of tenant was that landlord had taken a different stance in his suit for ejectment before civil court than the one taken by him in the ejectment petition before the Rent Tribunal, High Court observed that it was matter of evidence and the High Court could not decide under constitutional jurisdiction the factual controversies, which in the present case, could be decided by the Rent Tribunal—Constitutional petition being devoid of merits was dismissed. Citation Name: 2019 MLD 2095 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SHERAZ PERVAIZ MUSTAFA VS The SPECIAL JUDGE (RENT), LAHORE Ss. 5, 8, 9, 19 & 21—Ejectment of tenant—Tenancy being oral—Payment of fine—Effect—Ex-parte proceedings— Scope—Petition for leave to contest was dismissed and eviction petition was accepted ex-parte—Validity—Payment of fine would authorize the Rent Tribunal only to entertain an eviction petition—Mere entertainment of ejectment application did not confer jurisdiction to the Rent Tribunal nor could it be assumed unless relationship of landlord and tenant was accepted or its existence had been established through evidence—Rent Tribunal was to assume jurisdiction if eviction petition was supported by a registered tenancy—Relationship of landlord and tenant stood proved by operation of law in existence of written and registered tenancy agreement— Rent Tribunal was to determine the question of tenancy in absence of registered tenancy agreement for which relationship of landlord and tenant was sine-qua-non—Rent Tribunal to determine the terms and conditions of tenancy before determining the grounds of seeking an eviction order—If Rent Tribunal had proceeded ex-parte after denying leave to contest then existence of tenancy and its breach was prima facie to be proved by a non-compliant applicant through unimpeachable and undeniable evidence—Impugned order had been passed in a mechanical manner and no findings with regard to existence of tenancy or non-payment of rent had been passed—Rent Tribunal had failed to discharge its duty, in circumstances—Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside—Ejectment petition was to be deemed to be pending before the Rent Tribunal—Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 MLD 772 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IRIS COMMUNICATIONS (PVT.) LTD. VS AHMAD KHALID Ss. 17(2)(i) & 17(2)(ii)(b)—Ejectment petition—Grounds—Default in payment of rent—Residential property used for commercial purposes—Admittedly, the appellant was unable to bring on record any evidence, oral or documentary, regarding the payment of rent to the landlord after a specific date—In such circumstances tenant was rightly held to be a “willful defaulter”—Furthermore as per the lease agreement the tenant took the property on rent for residential purposes, but he had converted the property to commercial use, thus he violated the terms of the lease agreement— Court below had rightly allowed the ejectment petition of the landlord and ordered the tenant to vacate the premises— Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 CLC 909 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case STAR HOLDINGS VS Dr. NISHAT AFZA QURESHI S. 17—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 107—Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 17(d)—Ejectment petition- –Lease agreement for a period of ten years not registered—Effect—Lease of immovable property from year to year or for a term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent could only be made through a registered instrument, as mandated by S.107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and S.17(d) of the Registration Act, 1908—In case a lease agreement was so required to be registered but not registered with the Registrar of documents then the lease agreement was bad in law—Consequently, the relationship between such a landlord and the tenant beyond the initial period of eleven (11) months was to be regulated by the provisions of the statute in question i.e. the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963—Such a tenant became a statutory tenant and the tenancy continued on a month to month basis- –In the present case, the lease agreement was for a period of ten years, however it was not registered—Admittedly, the initial eleven (11) months of the tenancy had already lapsed—Tenant was, therefore, a statutory tenant thereafter and the tenancy was to continue on a month to month basis—Plea of tenant that the lease agreement was for a period of 10-years and was not terminable prior to the lapse of the stipulated 7-years was not sustainable and was accordingly repelled—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 CLCN 30 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HANIF VS Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN S. 15—Ejectment petition—Wilful default in payment of monthly rent—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant- –Scope—Conflict between judgments of Trial Court and Appellate Court—Scope—Petitioners/tenants contended that Rent Tribunal had rightly dismissed ejectment petition of the respondent/landlady as she produced a forged tenancy agreement—Landlady contended that Appellate Court had rightly set aside the order of Rent Tribunal as petitioners retained original tenancy agreement, so she produced a copy of said agreement—Validity—Tenant could not question the title of landlady and he only had to prove that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties did not exist—Even a person entitled to receive rent fell within the definition of landlord—Petitioners had to prove that they had not entered into any tenancy agreement with the landlady—Findings of Rent Tribunal regarding non-existence of any tenancy agreement between the parties was based on the statement made, during cross-examination, by one of the witnesses of the landlady that no agreement was executed between the parties in his presence—Rent Tribunal had misread said evidence as she never took stance that said witness was present at the time of execution of the tenancy agreement between the parties—Landlady had mentioned in the petition that the tenancy agreement was signed by two marginal witnesses with assertion that one stood witness from respondents’ side whereas the other, who was admittedly brother-in-law of one of the petitioners was from the tenant’s side—Petitioners had failed to produce the said marginal witness to controvert the claim of the landlady—Son of the deceased stamp vendor, scribe of the tenancy agreement, had identified the writing and signature of his father on tenancy agreement, who also denied the suggestion that the said document was forged one—Original tenancy agreement had not been produced by any of the parties and only a copy of said document had been placed on record, however, execution of the said document had been fully proved by the landlady by production of oral evidence—Even from statement of one of the petitioners, it was evident that tenancy agreement was executed between the parties— Judgment of Appellate Court would be given preference in case of conflict between Trial Court and Appellate Court—No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court—Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 CLCN 27 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Malik ZAHEER ABBAS VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE S. 15—Ejectment of tenant—Wilfull default in payment of monthly rent—Scope—Oral tenancy agreement—Scope— Petitioner/tenant contended that Rent Tribunal had wrongly dismissed his application to contest the ejectment petition filed by the respondent/landlord—Respondent contended that from the very beginning of the tenancy the petitioner was irregular towards payment of monthly rent—Validity—Record revealed that the Rent Tribunal had dismissed the application of the petitioner to contest the ejectment petition on the ground that he (petitioner) had failed to give any proof regarding payment of the monthly rent—In case of oral agreement, the tenancy was from month to month and when not extended/accepted by the landlord, the same would have been terminated—Findings of the Rent Tribunal were on the basis of correct appreciation and evaluation of the available material and the law on the subject—High Court observed that when the matter in shape of an appeal came before the District Court, again both the parties were heard, the facts and circumstances of the case were re-visited, law on the subject was considered and as no defect in the order passed by the Rent Controller was found, the appeal was dismissed—No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the concurrent findings passed by the two Courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 PLD 94 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Syed NASEEM AHMED VS Mst. REHANA TAJ Ss. 3 & 4—landlord and tenant—Illegal dispossession—Scope—Petitioner-tenant alleged that the respondentlandlady had illegally and unlawfully dispossessed him from the rented premises—Trial Court dismissed the complaint of petitioner—Validity—Petitioner remained tenant of respondent from 2012 onwards—Petitioner had sent rent amount by money order to respondent and upon refusal to accept the same, petitioner deposited rent with the Rent Controller—Case of petitioner fell within the ambit of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and Trial Court had erred in reaching to the conclusion that case did not attract the provisions of said Act—Revision petition was accepted. Citation Name: 2019 PTD 2251 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUSTAQIM DYEING AND PRINTING INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED VS PROVINCE OF SINDH Ss. 3 & 4—Suit for declaration—Sales tax on services—Taxable services/activities under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011—Economic activity—Renting out of immoveable property—-Question before High Court was whether the renting of immoveable property fell within definition of “providing or rendering services or of economic activity” under Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011—Held, that mere letting out of an immoveable property by a landlord to a tenant on rent for consideration did not involve any element of providing any taxable services therefore amount of rent received by the landlord in such a case could not be subjected to tax under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011—Suit was decreed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 PTD 389 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case YOUNG’S (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS PROVINCE OF SINDH Ss. 2 (72B), 2 (72C), 2 (79), 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, First Schedule Tariff Heading 9806.3000 & Second Schedule Part-B— Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 70, 73, 142 & Fourth Schedule [as amended by Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010]—Provincial legislation—Renting of immovable property—Services—Economic activity—Petitioners were owners of immovable properties who were aggrieved of imposing of sales tax under the heading of services on rental income from said properties—Validity—Scope of Provincial Legislation was enhanced while abolishing Concurrent Legislative List from Fourth Schedule to the Constitution—Express restriction upon Provincial Legislation was imposed to the extent of Federal Legislative List in Fourth Schedule to the Constitution—Term ‘economic activity’ included supply of moveable property by way of lease, license or similar arrangement but supply of immovable property by way of lease, license or similar arrangement was excluded by legislature from the purview of definition of term ‘economic activity’—Mere renting of immovable property by landlord to tenant for consideration (rent) did not involve any element of service or taxable service or economic activity as defined in Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act 2011—Notice of recovery of sales tax under Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011, issued by authorities was without lawful authority—Mere letting out of immovable property by landlord to a tenant on rent for consideration did not involve any element of providing any taxable services—Amount of rent received by landlord from tenant could not be subjected to tax while invoking provision of S.2(72C) of Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 read with Tariff Heading 9806.3000 of First Schedule and Part-B of Second Schedule to Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011—Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2846 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ZAHID HUSSAIN VS SALEEM YOUSUF Ss.16, 15 & 10—Eviction of tenant—Non-compliance of tentative rent order—Default in payment of future monthly rent—Scope—Rent Controller, on the application of petitioner/landlord, passed tentative rent order for payment of arrears of rent as well for next (coming ) three months and subsequently struck off defence of tenant (respondent ) for non-compliance of deposit of three months in advance—Appellate Court set aside the order passed by Rent Controller and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide the same on merit—Petitioner/ landlord contended that order to deposit the future rent in advance could not be condoned—Respondent/tenant contended that tentative rent order did not specify whether future rent was required to be deposited in advance or after becoming due on expiry of the month- –Validity—Points for consideration which remained to be resolved were, whether the tentative rent order were properly interpreted/ understood by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court, keeping in view the language of Ss.10, 15(2) & 16(1)(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and whether the date on which the future monthly rent deposited were in time or not—Said tentative rent order reflected that directions were given to the tenant/respondent for payment of future monthly rent on or before the 10th of each calendar month next following, when in terms of S. 10 or 15(2) the rent for the previous month would become due—Provision of S. 16(1) of the Ordinance did not permit the Rent Controller to pass order for advance payment of rent for current months —If the Rent Controller had taken reasonable care at the time of passing the orders under S.16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, he could have clarified said legal position in his orders regarding payment of future/ current monthly rent by incorporating the words “next month” “coming month” “subsequent month” or “succeeding month”, while forming such view—Rent Controller, in the present case, proceeded a misinterpretation of the rent order under misconception of law that the rent for alleged three months of default was payable in advance by the 10th of each calendar month, though in accordance with law to avoid commission of default, rent for the each said month was payable by the 10th of next (succeeding) month, when it would have become due—In the present case, as per report of Nazir/C.O.C the respondent had deposited the future rent for disputed period, which was well within time in view of the scale of law—By no stretch of imagination, the respondent could be held defaulter in the compliance of tentative rent order as alleged by the appellant/petitioner—No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Court, constitutional petitions were dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2500 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case CAPRI AUTOS, NMOTORCYCLE DEALERS VS Dr. MASUMA HASAN Ss. 15 & 18—Eviction petition—Default in payment of rent—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant—Deposit of rent in court—Notice of change in ownership, service of—Scope—Landlord while claiming default in payment of rent asserted that the tenant was inducted in the premises by previous tenant and that he was a trespasser—Tenant asserted that he came to know about the change of ownership of premises through public notice; that he offered the rent personally which the landlord’s attorney refused to receive; that the rent was then tendered through money order which too was refused and that the rent was being deposited in court—Validity—Eviction petition was not maintainable against a trespasser or an illegal occupant—Landlady admitted that no notice regarding change in ownership was ever served upon the tenant however, claimed that two notices requiring vacation of premises were sent—Landlady had been quiet until filing of eviction application and had never attempted to inform the tenant regarding change of ownership—Notices were not proved to be served upon the tenant—Tenant, soon after acquiring knowledge of publication of notice, had offered the rent and on its refusal and denial, deposited the same in miscel-laneous rent case, which deposit was within a reasonable period of acquiring knowledge of the change of ownership—Default, as claimed by landlady, was an engineered one—Eviction application was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2121 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR VS Mst. LALA RUKH SAMAD KHAN S. 17—Ejectment petition—Default—landlord and tenant, relationship of—Registered document—Presumption of ownership— Scope— Tenant, after passing of ejectment order, approached Rent Controller and claimed ownership of rented premises—Rent Controller set aside the ejectment order and dismissed the ejectment case—Validity— Appellant had presented himself as owner of the premises while instument of ownership was not in his name—SubRegistrar concerned had reported that ‘B-Lease’ was executed in the name of tenant—Rent Controller had rightly presumed ownership on the basis of registered document—Presumption of ownership would go in favour of tenant as long as registered ‘B-Lease’ was in existence—High Court declared the order passed by Rent Controller as proper and beffitting to the scenario—Appeal was dismissed. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2013 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Chaudhary MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS Vth ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI (SOUTH) S. 15—Eviction petition—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by tenant—Scope—Where tenant asserts that he is no more a tenant as he has purchased the property, even then he has to vacate the property and file a suit for specific performance of the sale agreement—Tenant would be entitled to possession of the property in accordance with law only if he succeeds in the said suit. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2013 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Chaudhary MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS Vth ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI (SOUTH) S. 15—Eviction petition—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by tenant—Scope—Landlord would be entitled to recover rent till the time civil court passes a decree against the landlord in a suit for specific performance. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2013 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Chaudhary MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS Vth ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI (SOUTH) Ss. 15 & 16—Eviction petition—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by tenant—Non-compliance of tentative rent order—Effect—Petitioner/ landlord assailed the order of Appellate Court whereby while allowing the appeal of tenant it had set aside the orders passed by Rent Controller—Contention of tenant was that tentative rent could not be determined unless the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant was not decided—Validity—Plaint filed by tenant seeking specific performance of the alleged sale of demised premises in his favour was rejected and he had not challenged the said order—Tenant had attempted to establish his alleged right and title in respect of the premises but had failed in such attempt—Tenant had no other or further remedy in law to claim or enforce his alleged right or title in respect of the demised premises—Orders passed by Rent Controller for deposit of rent and then striking off the defence of tenant due to non-compliance of the said order were in accord with the law—Order passed by Appellate Court, being not sustainable in law, was set aside— Constitutional petition was allowed. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 1817 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mst. ZULEKHA KHANUM VS PERVAIZ AKHTER S. 15—Eviction petition—Default in payment of rent—Accumulated rent—Scope—Landlady sought eviction of tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent—Plea of tenant was that he used to pay accumulated rent for several months to the landlady through rent collector who, despite his repeated requests, did not come to collect the rent for the disputed period and due to such delay rent was paid after six months—Rent Controller ordered for eviction of tenant and Appellate Court allowed the appeal—Validity—If landlord accepted accumulated rent from the tenant periodically or with intervals, it did not mean that he did not desire or expect rent to be paid within time by the tenant as required by law, or that he had waived his right to claim rent within time—Such practice by the landlord in no way overrided or negated the express provisions of law nor could it absolve the tenant from discharging his statutory obligation of paying the rent to the landlord within time under the provisions of relevant laws—Even the court had no power to superimpose any new procedure or method for payment of rent extraneous to the statute—Tenant was bound to pay rent to the landlord within time as required by law through any of the modes prescribed by law; and it was not duty of the landlord to collect rent from the tenant or to remind or chase him for payment of rent; and, payment of accumulated rent even once by a tenant would make him liable to eviction—Tenant had, in the present case, admittedly paid accumulated rent of six months, which showed that there was a clear default on his part—Judgment passed by Appellate Court was set aside and the order passed by Rent Controller for eviction of tenant was restored—Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 1763 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AKBAR ALI VS Mst. FATIMA BIBI S. 15—Ejectment of tenant—Sale agreement in favour of tenant—Effect—Contention of tenant was that she had sale agreement of demised premises in her favour—Eviction petition was accepted by the Rent Controller but same was dismissed by the Appellate Court—Validity—Rent Controller could not adjudicate the dispute with regard to title of demised premises—Only Civil Court had jurisdiction to determine the veracity and effect of sale agreement and not a Rent Controller—Appellate Court observed that Rent Controller should have directed the parties to get the question of title decided by the competent Civil Court rather passing order of ejectment—Said observation of Appellate Court was contrary to law as Rent Controller was not bound to pass such advice or direction to the parties—Tenant had filed a suit for specific performance of contract but same did not debar the landlord from proceedings before Rent Controller- –Mere pendency of a civil suit did not change the status of a tenant—Tenant could not claim continuity of his possession over demised premises due to pendency of civil suit—Tenant would remain tenant even if he entered into a sale agreement with regard to demised premises—Tenant could not continue his possession over the demised premises on the basis of sale agreement—Tenant was to vacate the demised premises and comply with the ejectment order and continue to establish his right before the competent Civil Court—Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was contrary to law and was not sustainable—Order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and that of Rent Controller was restored—Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 1690 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AAMIR MALIK VS Mrs. AFSHAN ATEEQ Ss. 17(9) & 24—Eviction of tenant— Terms of tenancy agreement that preference was to be given to tenant in case of selling rented premises by the landlord— Scope— Additional Rent Controller passed tentative rent order whereby tenant was to deposit future monthly rent but he did not comply with the said order— Appellant/tenant contended that as per terms of the tenancy agreement the landlady/ respondent was bound to first get his consent before selling the rented premises—Validity—Contention of the appellant was entirely misconceived for two reasons; firstly, in such proceedings, the question of sale could not be adjudicated and , secondly, the moment the tenant had admitted to have been put into possession of the premises under a written tenancy he would not have any liberty to subsequently deny relationship of ‘landlord’ and ‘tenant’ and consequences arising out of such tenancy unless any subsequent agreement was enforced through course of law—Even otherwise, any such clause as asserted by the appellant, would never prejudice the rights of the owner—Tenant had taken such plea but had not pleaded that respondent had sold or was selling the premises to any body, therefore, such plea was of no legal weight—Appellant was put into possession of the premises under tenancy agreement which also included the clause of mandatory requirement of renewal of tenancy with 10% increase in rent, therefore, even after expiry of rent period the parties would be governed by such agreement —Record revealed that there had not been any further tenancy agreement, hence even after expiry of agreed period of 11 months, the parties would stand governed by specifically detailed terms (intentions), therefore, Additional Rent Controller had committed no illegality while passing the tentative order— Said tentative order was confined with reference to future monthly rent with ‘10% increase” which term even was not disputed by the appellant—Additional Rent Controller had also categorically made it clear that rent deposit (under the tentative order) was subject to final determination, hence no harm was likely to fall upon the appellant in making compliance of such tentative order which otherwise was mandatory in its nature and non-compliance thereof was directly punishable and defence of tenant could be struck off and eviction could follow—Appellant, in the present case, prima facie had failed in making compliance of such order, hence, the subsequent action of Additional Rent Controller was well within the meaning of S.17(9) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963—Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 1317 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case YOUSUF ALI VS MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ Ss. 10(3) & 15—Ejectment petition—Willful default—Deposit of rent in the office of Rent Controller—Claim of ownership by tenant through unregistered sale deed on expiry of rent agreement—Validity—Default had been proved by the conduct of tenant when he chose to deposit rent in the office of Rent Controller instead of first tendering it to the landlord—No documentary proof with regard to sale transaction between landlord and tenant was available— Tenant was directed by the High Court to vacate the rented premises—Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 1301 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mst. MEHRUNISA VS MUHAMMAD ASLAM PARACHA S. 17—Eviction of tenant—Personal bona fide need of landlord—Scope—Amount deposited as Pagri by the tenant— Effect—Petitioner/lady tenant contended that respondent was not co-owner of the property where the rented premises (flat ) was situated which fact was upheld by the Supreme Court in an earlier dispute between the parties—Validity— Petitioner although had relied upon the order passed by the Supreme Court which was passed leave to appeal, however, she did not make pointation to the subsequent order passed while hearing civil appeal wherein Supreme Court had observed in clear terms that respondent was also a co-owner of the rented premises—After nine months of passing of said order of the Supreme Court, respondent moved ejectment application so the plea taken by the tenant had no force that at the time of filing of the ejectment application the respondent was not holding status and legal character of co-owner—Petitioner in her written statement had herself admitted that she had been depositing monthly rent in the name of previous (deceased) owner and all the heirs including respondent—Petitioner, thus, by her own conduct had clearly admitted the respondent to be one of the co-owners/landlords of the property wherein the flat (rented premises) was situated—Sole testimony of the landlord was sufficient to establish his personal bona fide need- –Statement of the landlord on oath, in the present case, was consistent with his averments made in the ejectment application—Landlord had the prerogative to select any of his properties for his need and the tenant had no right to raise any such objection and even the Rent Controller could not make any suggestion in that regard—If any premises was specifically meant for residential purpose, but the tenant had used such residential premises for commercial use, it would not change the status and character of the said premises from residential to commercial one—Petitioner had not produced any tangible material in order to prove the factum of payment of pagri amount and secondly, if it was presumed that pagri amount was paid by the petitioner in respect of the rented premises, even then it would not debar the respondent to seek eviction of the petitioner on the ground of his personal bona fide need—No jurisdictional error or any perversity was found in the impugned orders—Constitutional jurisdiction being a discretionary jurisdiction was meant to foster justice and to remedy the wrong but could not be invoked in routine course as an additional remedy to hamper the findings of fact correctly recorded by the two forums below—No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned orders passed by the two Courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 1181 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD DIN VS Mst. KAUSAR JEHAN Ss. 2(f), 15 & 18—-Eviction of tenant—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant—Legal status of the eviction petitioner objected by the tenant—Scope—Eviction petition—Maintainability—Words “owner” and “entitled to receive” in S.2(f), Sindh rented Premises Ordinance, 1979—Scope—Petitioner/tenant contended that respondent(lady) was not competent to file eviction petition against him as she had yet to prove gift deed, regarding demised premises, in her favour by her deceased husband and said gift was never complete in her favour as possession was with him (tenant)—Petitioner submitted that he was tenant of her late husband and was continuously paying the monthly rent in the Court in his (husband’s ) name as demised premises was yet to be transferred to the legal heirs of the original owner—Respondent (lady) contended that her father-in-law was original owner of the whole property who gifted/transferred half of the said property( including demised premises) to her late husband and she, being a legal heir, was competent to move the Rent Controller—Validity—Section 2(f) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 stipulated the definition of ‘landlord’ which not only included “owner” but also ‘entitled to receive’—Succession opened the moment he died and his legal heir(s) became the owner even without such entry in record of rights— Ownership earned through inheritance thus, was not necessarily dependent upon entry/mutation in record of rights— After the demise of original owner his legal heirs would be construed as ‘owner’ and could file the ejectment petition without any Letter of Administration thus, ejectment petition filed by the lady was maintainable—Tenant had admitted the status of husband of the lady as ‘landlord’ and he even acknowledged that he (petitioner), on refusal of the husband of the lady to accept the rent, started depositing the rent in the name of husband of the lady—Relationship of landlord and tenant between husband of the lady and the tenant was never a matter of dispute—Since the husband of the lady had died leaving the her as one of the legal heirs (widow), therefore, ejectment petition was maintainable and absence of Letter of Administration , caused no prejudice to competence and maintainability of ejectment petition—Plea of the petitioner raised with reference to gift became of no use—Status of the ‘tenant’ did not give him any other right except that to retain possession of the premises till legal continuity of the tenancy, he(tenant) in absence of any other direct or indirect legal character, could not question the title of the landlord particularly in rent proceedings—Inclusion of gift in S. 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 also affirmed that validity of a gift would not be questioned merely for reason of physical delivery of possession of premises which was under tenancy— Constructive delivery of possession would be sufficient on transfer of title—Tenant was not legally entitled to change of ownership and once a notice, within meaning of S. 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was served, the tenant had to honour his obligation and legally could not question change of ownership whether the same be through sale, gift etc—Husband of the lady, admittedly, had served a notice upon the petitioner and in consequence thereof the petitioner started depositing rent in the Court thus, the petitioner was never legally justified in raising said plea—Jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution could not be invoked merely for the reason that a different conclusion was possible—No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned orders passed by the two Courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 1126 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AHSAN VS SHAHID KHAN YOUSUFZAI S. 17—Eviction of tenant—Wilful default—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by tenant—Scope— Evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties where tenant simply denied the relationship— Scope— Petitioner/ landlord contended that he was absolute and exclusive owner of two shops (rented premises) which were let out to the respondent on verbal terms—Landlord submitted that tenant was not paying rent since April 2014 and had not increased the rent despite requests—Respondent/tenant contended that two Courts below had rightly dismissed the eviction petition as he (petitioner) failed to produce any document in support of his ownership of rented premises—Validity— Respondent / tenant had produced, before the High Court, a copy of lease deed bearing a date of year 2017 in his support to challenge the rival fact that the petitioner was owner of demised property—Said mischievously carved instrument was not present/ available before the Courts below—Both the Courts below upheld the occupancy of the demised shops by the respondent as said Courts were seemingly obsessed with the idea that no relationship of landlord/tenant existed between the parties—Respondent had denied the very status of landlord subsequent to his induction in the premises as tenant by the petitioner—Such stance had disentitled the respondent from seeking equitable relief in eviction petition, rather outcome of the eviction petition would be based on the evaluation of evidence produced by the rival parties —If the evidence of the landlord relating to his entitlement was better in quality and quantity and the tenant had simply denied relationship and claimed that he was not occupant of rented premises owned by landlord but no evidence was brought on record to legitimize his occupancy, Courts were bound to give favour to the landlord—High Court, after consideration of the material on record and the evidence, reached to the conclusion that both the orders of the Courts below were flawed on account of non-application of judicial mind—High Court set aside the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below with direction to the tenant to handover possession to the landlord—Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 966 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case PHARMACIE PLUS through Group Administration Head VS ABDUL LATIF Ss. 7, 8, 17 & 24–Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S. 8—Eviction of tenant—Fair rent—Scope— Terms of agreement not in consonance with the prevalent law—Effect— Enhancement/increase in monthly rent during/expiry of the tenancy—Scope—Question was as to whether law prohibited parties to re-determine the quantum of rent within three years, than the one agreed originally in the agreement—Respondent/ landlord moved an application for the enhancement of rent along with eviction petition, which application was allowed by the Rent Controller in the light of two clauses incorporated in the agreement between the parties stipulating that rent of the rented premises would be increased @ 7% after every eleven months—Rent Controller subsequently struck off the defense of the tenant for non-compliance to deposit enhanced monthly rent and passed order for eviction of the tenant- –Appellant/tenant contended that the term of the agreement, regarding enhancement of rent, was not in consonance with the law and he kept depositing rent without enhancing the rate, in the office of Rent Controller till the said office suddenly refused to receive the same—landlord contended that the very agreement between the parties stipulated the enhancement of rent during and even at the expiry of the tenancy— Validity—Section 7 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 provided a remedy of increase by way of fair rent and further prohibited any increase once determined under S. 7, Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963—Parties, in the present case, had agreed for enhancement of rent in the existing rent by 7% within three years—Section 8 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act,1963 provided that once rent was determined and fixed under S. 7, Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 it would not be lawful, either with or without consent of a tenant, to increase the rent unless addition, improvement or alteration was made in the building other than by ordinary or usual repairs at the expense of landlord—Section 7(5), Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 provided that when fair rent of the building had been fixed by the Rent Controller or where the rent of the building had been determined by an agreement between landlord and tenant, no further increase in the fair rent would be permissible , during the continuance of tenancy, within a period of three years from the date fixed by the Rent Controller or from the date of agreement—Addition, alteration and improvement could entitle the parties to re-negotiate the quantum of rent—landlord had not claimed enhancement in rent on the basis of making some addition, alteration or improvement—Definition of “fair rent” under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was different than the one provided in Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963—Rent agreed mutually in an agreement was also deemed to be the fair rent within the meaning provided under S.7(5) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963—Held, enhancement in rent, in the present case, was made within three years of execution of agreement, contrary to S.7(5) & S. 8 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, and no enhancement could be made unless the recourse to the provision regarding improvement/alteration was fulfilled— Eviction petition also including ground of personal requirement—High Court, in view of said ground remanded the matter to Rent Controller for its disposal in accordance with law—Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 474 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mst. ZAHIDA PERVEEN VS IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN Ss. 15 & 16 (1)—Ejectment of tenant—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant on the basis of agreement to sell—Application for deposit of arrears of rent in the Court—“Interlocutory order”—Effect—Landlords moved an application seeking direction for deposit of arrears of rent but same was dismissed—Validity—Sale of demised premises had not been completed in favour of tenants—Demised premises had not been transferred in favour of tenants through a registered instrument—Demised premises was still in the name of landlords—Suit for specific performance with regard to demised premises was subjudice before the Trial Court—Tenants were not entitled to claim ownership of demised premises till a decree was passed in their favour and same had attained finality—Mere pendency of suit for specific performance would not change the position—Relationship of landlord and tenant for the purpose of jurisdiction of Rent Controller stood established—Rent Controller was bound to pass a tentative rent order on the application filed by the landlords—Rent Controller had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law— Any order passed by a Court or tribunal in excess of its jurisdiction or by not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it by law could be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—Mere fact that impugned order was interlocutory would not prevent the High Court from exercising constitutional jurisdiction—Superior Courts had inherent and constitutional powers to remedy and correct the wrongs committed by subordinate Courts—Impugned order was set aside in circumstances—Tenants were directed to deposit arrears of rent within thirty days and future monthly rent regularly till final disposal of the ejectment petition—Amount deposited by the tenants was directed to be invested in some profit bearing Government scheme and be paid/released along with profit to the successful party— Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 313 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ASLAM PERVEZ VS MADARSA ANWARUL ISLAM GHOUSIA FARIDIA (REGD.) NOOR MASJID GHOTKI Ss. 15, 16 & 21—Eviction petition—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant—Rent Controller passed tentative rent order directing the tenant to deposit arrears and future rent—Appeal against interim order—Scope— Petitioner/tenant contended that, in absence of remedy of appeal against interim order, he could challenge the same by invoking constitutional jurisdiction as he had denied relationship of landlord and tenant—Validity—Section 21 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 provided remedy of appeal against order passed by Rent Controller but the same did not include interim order normally passed on interlocutory application(s)— Interim order was always of limited duration which legally did not control the final adjudication rather stood merged into final order thereby it became of no value—Law did not require to challenge an interim order even by way of constitutional jurisdiction so that the intention of legislature might not be frustrated—Impugned order being interim one by itself neither had determined the relationship between the parties nor could be referred as final determination of the lis, so no appeal was available—Things which the law itself had not provided, would not be available even by attempting other procedure including constitutional jurisdiction—Impugned order could not be permitted to be challenged by the tenant before High Court by invoking its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction—Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 CLC 2008 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case SOHAIL VS KAMRAN SIDDIQUI Ss.2(g) & 15(2)(vii)—Eviction of tenant—Bona fide personal need of brother of landlord—Landlord sought eviction of tenant from his shop on plea of bona fide personal need by his brother—Rent Controller dismissed eviction application but same was allowed by Lower Appellate Court—Validity—Landlord was not entitled to claim demised premises for his brother as siblings did not fall within definition of ‘personal use’ contained in S.2(g) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 or in ground of eviction in S.15(2)(vii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and personal need of landlord was not in good faith or bona fide—High Court set aside order passed by Lower Appellate Court as it did not appreciate evidence on record particularly admissions made by landlord and his witness and restored that of Rent Controller—Constitutional Petition was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 CLC 1557 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case SHAMIM BEGUM VS AZIZUL HASAN KHAN Ss. 15 & 18—Ejectment of tenant—Change of ownership—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant—Default in payment of rent—Expression “or by such other mode” in S.18, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979—Scope—Agreement of sale—Scope—Landlord purchased demised premises through sale agreement and requested the tenant for payment of rent to him—Tenant did not pay rent to the new owner—Eviction petition was moved for personal use and on the ground of default in payment of rent—Contention of tenant was that she had purchased the demised premises from its previous owner through agreement of sale—Eviction petition was accepted concurrently—Validity—Previous Landlord had an agreement of sale and registered general power of attorney in his favour executed by the original owner—Landlord had even authority to sell and mortgage the demised premises on the basis of registered irrevocable general power of attorney—Tenant had only an agreement of sale the execution of which had been denied by the original owner—Tenant had not filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell to get such denial declared false and got her title perfected through due process of law—Agreement to sell in favour of tenant had been disputed by the original owner of demised premises—Landlord had discharged his burden to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant—Tenancy on service of notice under Section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the tenant was created by operation of law—Landlord was entitled to claim eviction of tenant on the ground of default as well as personal need—Use of phrase “or any other mode” in Section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in favour of new owner did cover transfer of property by registered irrevocable power of attorney duly registered with Registrar of property when such power was coupled with sale agreement showing consideration—When tenant had claimed ownership on the basis of mere sale agreement and he/she had failed to establish the same then default stood proved in favour of landlord—Tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises within thirty days—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 CLC 1410 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AFSAR VS MUHAMMAD ANWAR S.15—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R. 27—Ejectment application—Denial of tenancy by the occupant/tenant—Pendency of civil suit—Non-production of proof of entitlement by tenant—Effect—Non-disposal of application for additional evidence under O. XLI, R.27, C.P.C. by the Appellate Court—Legality— Petitioner/landlord contended that Appellate Court had wrongly set aside eviction order passed by the Rent Controller as tenant failed to prove his entitlement regarding rented premises—Tenant contended that he was in possession of the premises being shareholder/owner and in such regard civil suit was pending between the parties—Validity—Record revealed that tenant could not produce any document before the two courts below regarding his claim over the premises-Tenant, however, admitted that he was in possession of a portion of the premises since long but he could not substantiate his right of possession and he had no title document in his favour—Such occupant, by law would be considered as “tenant”—Non-disposal of the application under O. XLI R. 27, C.P.C. by the Appellate Court would not make any difference as giving permission for additional evidence was discretion of the Court and non-disposal of such application transpired that Appellate Court had not used its discretion in favour of the tenant—Fact that tenant had initiated civil proceedings by filing suit to establish his right would make no difference, for as long as the tenant had not succeeded in establishing his right before the competent court , his status would remain as “tenant”— If tenant succeeded in getting any relief from the competent civil court, he could seek possession of the property in question under the decree so obtained, therefor, mere pendency of civil suit was not a ground for refusal of the ejectment of tenant—High court set aside the impugned order passed by Appellate Court—Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 MLD 1797 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case AHMED BROTHERS VS PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LIMITED Ss. 8 & 42—Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), Ss. 2(f), 2(j), 13 & 18—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 105 & 109—Suit for declaration, possession, mesne profits and damages—Change of leasehold rights— Relationship of landlord and tenant—Scope—Plaintiff claimed possession, mesne profits/usage charges and damages on the ground that it had acquired leasehold rights of the suit property as such defendant was not entitled to possession of the property because it had acquired tenancy from the previous lessor, whose leasehold right had expired— Defendant contended that since the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties therefore, Rent Controller had exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter—Validity—Defendant being a person in possession of the premises after termination of tenancy was well covered under the definition of “tenant” as defined in subsection (j) of S. 2 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, however, tenant had to have a landlord without whom the relationship could not exist—Person who had not acquired a right from the earlier landlord could not be included in the definition of “landlord”—Plaintiff had acquired the same leasehold rights but the same were independent to the person having the same status earlier—Suit of plaintiff was decreed for possession of the subject property and rent, however, claim of damages was declined by the High Court. Citation Name: 2019 MLD 1625 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case HAIDER ALI RAVJANI VS GULZAR FEROZ Ss. 17(6)(9) & 24—Eviction of tenant—Wilful default in payment of monthly rent—Personal bona fide need—Scope- –Appellant/landlord contended that Additional Rent Controller had wrongly dismissed his eviction application by holding that he (landlord) was very much confused to specify particular ground on which he wanted to evict the tenant/respondent from the demised premises—Respondent/tenant contended that the plea of the appellant for personal need of demised premises was inconsistent and self-contradictory—Validity—Record revealed that appellant/landlord extended different reasons at various stages of the case, however, all such reasons were directed to personal bona fide use—Mere technicalities could not infringe his right of personal use as all varied reasons given by the appellant were based on personal need—If the appellant would use the premises for personal need in one month time period, as provided in S. 17(6) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 possession could be reverted to the tenant—Landlord was the sole arbiter in the matter of personal need of his own premises—Appellant/landlord had made out a good case for eviction of the tenant—High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Additional Rent Controller and directed the tenant to vacate the premises within three months—Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 CLC 1266 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case SALIM AHMED VS NASIM IMTIAZ Ss. 15 & 21—Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4 & 23—Eviction of tenant—Bona fide personal need of landlord for business—Scope—Invocation of extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of High Court after availing remedy provided under the relevant-law—Scope—Petitioner/tenant contended that respondent/landlord also owned other properties, through inheritance, to start his business—Validity—Filing of constitutional petition by tenant to delay his/her eviction was deprecated by High Court—High Court while seizing petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution against the judgment of Court or Tribunal of lower jurisdiction could not superimpose its opinion, merely because in its opinion the decision of Tribunal/Court was wrong—Fundamental right of a party guaranteed under Art. 23 of the Constitution could not be sacrificed against the party who had already exhausted his constitutional protection under Art. 4 of the Constitution by availing the remedy provided under the relevant law—High Court directed the petitioner to vacate the demised property within thirty days—Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 CLC 1063 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MAKHDOOM HUSSAM-UL-HAQ VS Syed GHULAM MOHIUDDIN S.15—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908 ), O. XLI, Rr. 25/27—-Eviction of tenant—Personal bona fide need of landlord for his son—Scope—Powers of Appellate Court to remand the case—Scope —Appellate Court remanded the case for adducing evidence of the son of the landlord for whom the rented premised was required— Petitioner/landlord contended that he required the rented premises in good faith for his son who had become a doctor – –Respondent/tenant contended that he needed three years as he was running school at the demised premises— Validity—Impugned order seemed to be contrary to the requirement of O. XLI, R. 25, C.P.C. whereby the Appellate Court had authority to remand the case for trial to the Court whose decree was being challenged by the aggrieved party but such authority had limited parameters—Such powers could be exercised only when the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the Trial Court had (i) omitted to frame or try an issue , or (ii) to determine any question of fact essential to the right/title of the suit / proceedings—Appellate Court, in the present case, had not observed that the issue of personal bonafide need of the landlord was not properly framed nor it had even commented on the very fact that the issue had been decided contrary to evidence, instead it had framed an issue out of the context of the dispute before the Rent Controller—-Need to produce son in evidence by the landlord for whom the premises was required had never been fatal for the case of the landlord seeking eviction of tenant on the ground of such need— Appellate Court had not commented on the orders passed by the Rent Controller but it had set aside the same through the remand order—Order of remand by Appellate Court in given facts of the case was contrary to the facts, law and the question raised by it as additional issue was neither essential for the “right decision” in the case on point of personal need of landlord—Such was outside the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to decide whether doctor was eligible to start hospital in the premises in question—Impugned remand order was, therefore, patently illegal and Appellate Court had improperly exercised its jurisdiction—Appellate Court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record—Unusual long period of time could not be granted for vacating the premises in such matters— High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court and granted eight months time to the respondent to shift his school from the rented premises—Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 CLC 687 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mst. FARZANA JAVED VS Mst. NIGHAT SULTANA S.15—Eviction petition—Personal bona fide need of landlady—Choice of landlord—Even if more than one premises were available with the landlord and he/she chose to occupy for personal need a particular one, the tenant had no right to challenge such choice of the landlord. Citation Name: 2019 CLC 657 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ANTHONY D’SILVA VS SARFRAZ ALI Ss. 15 & 18—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 27—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 71 & 129—Ejectment petition—Wilful default by tenant—Scope—Service of notice to the tenant—Due service—Essentials—Denial on oath by a party—Burden of proof, shifting of—Scope—Negative oral evidence—Scope—Petitioner/tenant contended that he did not receive notice and as he had denied the said fact on oath, the burden of proof had shifted to the landlords—Respondents/landlords contended that sending of notice to the tenant through courier and Registered Post was sufficient proof of the same—Validity—Address, in the present case, was stated to be correct and the registered post acknowledgement was also available on record—Respondents/Landlords appeared to have discharged their burden when an acknowledgement receipt was produced to establish that notice under S. 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was sent and served which presumption was governed by Art. 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—Denial on oath could only shift the burden upon landlord if tenant/addressee had himself appeared before the Court whereas, in the present case, attorney of the tenant appeared to adduce evidence—Negative oral evidence could lean for presumption of truth under S.27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 and Art. 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—Best evidence was withheld by petitioner/tenant—Where a fact was required to be proved through oral evidence , such evidence must be direct and of primary source within the meaning of Art. 71 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 which provided instances of direct oral evidence regarding proof of fact—Landlords could not be deprived of their legitimate right once the notices had been served upon the tenant—If the Rent Controller was required to extract the intention of a wilful or non-wilful default it would end up every case as non-wilful default as every tenant would have some legitimate reasons/excuses like financial crises or payment of rent to the previous owner etc.—At times technical default was being considered by the Court but that was limited to the extent that the same was being deposited in the name of same landlord which depended upon the nature, circumstance and controversy of each case—No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the judgments and the decrees passed by the two Courts below—Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 CLC 85 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case AMIR VS NASIR AHMED S.15—Eviction petition—Wilful default—tenant denied relationship of landlord and tenant—Scope—Pendency of suit for specific performance of agreement to sell regarding the subject premises—Effect—Rent Controller— Jurisdiction—Scope—Petitioner / tenant contended that till final decision of pending civil suit, Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition of the landlord—Respondent/landlord contended that owing to wilful default in payment of rent two courts below had rightly ordered eviction of the tenant—Validity—Mere denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and pendency of civil suit for specific performance of contract did not take away jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to entertain Rent Case as sale agreement did not create any interest or confer any title on the person in whose favour such agreement was executed—Proceedings before Rent Controller could not be stopped to wait for the final outcome of the civil suit—If tenant would succeed in obtaining decree in the civil suit, he could have access to the subject premises—tenant had not paid the rent while claiming purchase of the subject premises in the year 1999, therefore, Rent Controller had rightly found that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent—No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned orders passed by the Two Courts below, Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 PLD 18 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case WILLAYAT ALI VS NAHEED HUSSAIN Ss. 15(2)(vii) & 2(g)—Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 23, 24 & 199—Eviction of tenant—Personal bona fide need for a family member of the landlord—Scope—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant— Petitioner/landlord contended that both the Courts below had wrongly declined his claim of personal bona fide need, merely on the ground that he failed to mention particular name(s) of any person from his family for whom demised premises were needed—Validity—Held, though very limited scope was permitted in constitutional jurisdiction to interfere in such matter but it was responsibility of the High Court to protect property rights envisaged by Arts. 23 & 24 of the Constitution—Record revealed that while Rent Controller had acknowledged that during cross-examination the petitioner submitted that the premises was needed for the marriage of his son, however, Rent Controller treated the same as a variance between his (landlord’s) need and need of another family member—None of the two Courts below was competent to pierce through the family needs, seeking pin pointation of the person for whom the property was needed as long as need was coming from within the family—Sections 2(g) & 15(2)(vii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 collectively stipulated that Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 treated the landlord and his spouse or his family members as ‘one unit’ and became satisfied to handover the possession to any of the said persons- –To breakdown the solidarity and integrity of the family unit of the landlord and to put in the witness box landlord’s wife or his children or other family members for whom the landlord needed the demised property was not required—If such would have been the intention of the Legislature, it would have been so specifically spelt out therein, therefore, it was up to the landlord to satisfy the Rent Controller that the demised property was needed by him, his wife or children, making no exposure for them to come up in the witness box and be examined or cross-examined individually—Said veil of family-integration was not allowed to be ruptured and the tenant could not object to the internal arrangement worked out by the family amongst themselves in such regard—Conduct of respondent disclaiming his relationship with landlord itself disentitled the respondent from any equitable relief—High Court set aside judgments passed by the two Courts below, constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 CLCN 65 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD MUZAMMIL VS Khawaja MUKHTIAR ALI S. 15—Eviction petition—Adverse title, claim of—Scope—tenant cannot defeat the order of Rent Controller by claiming title adverse to the title of landlord who has put him in possession of demised premises as tenant. [Para. 7 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2019 CLCN 65 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD MUZAMMIL VS Khawaja MUKHTIAR ALI S. 15—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)—Eviction petition—tenant claiming adverse title—Abuse of process of court—Scope—Eviction petition filed by landlord was allowed and the said order was maintained up to High Court—tenant, in execution proceedings, filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. wherein he claimed that the attorney of landlord had sold out the demised premises to him—Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was concurrently dismissed by executing court and appellate court—Validity—Landlord had never informed the tenant about his intentions to sale the demised premises—tenant, before entering into sale purchase of the demised premises with the attorney, should have insisted upon withdrawal of execution petition filed against him—tenant could not defeat the order of Rent Controller by claiming title adverse to the title of landlord who had put him in possession of demised premises as tenant—Petition was dismissed and Rent Controller was directed by the High Court to issue writ of possession of the demised premises within 15 days. [Paras. 7 & 9 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2019 CLCN 25 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS SHRI MAHANT BABOO LALGIR MAHRAJ Ss. 15, 18, 20 & 21—Ejectment of tenant—Change of ownership on the basis of decree of the Court—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant—Default in payment of rent—Expression “or by such other mode” in S. 18 of the Ordinance—Scope—Dispute of title or ownership—Determination of—Procedure—Landlord became owner of demised premises through decree of the Court and tenant was intimated with regard to change of ownership and was requested for payment of rent to the new landlord—Tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant— Eviction petition was allowed by the Rent Controller on the ground of default in payment of rent—Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Rent Controller with the direction to decide the same afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and directed the civil Court to amend the decree passed in the civil suit—Contention of tenant was that decree of the Court did not create any title—Validity—Tenants were in possession on the demised premises as tenants and they were not claiming ownership—Notice for change of ownership of demised premises had been received by the tenants—Tenants were bound to tender rent to the new owner of the demised premises within 30 days from the moment they had received the intimation of transfer of ownership by sale, gift, inheritance “or by such other mode”—Notice from new owner to the tenant for change of ownership was enough—Tenants on receiving the said notice refused to tender rent to the new owner on the ground that the decree of Court did not create any title— Decree of Court could also be one of the “such other mode” for transfer of ownership of demised premises—Decree of Court was against previous landlord/owners who were party to the suit in which same was passed—Tenant had no right to question the title of landlord—Tenants on receiving notice of change of ownership were supposed to protect their right as tenant in the demised premises in their possession by tendering rent to the person who had sent them the notice—Tenants had failed to tender rent to the new owner of demised premises—Courts while exercising authority under the law had no jurisdiction to decide or even comment on the title/ownership of the property in possession of tenant—If issue of relationship of landlord and tenant was complex then it should be left for the Civil Court to decide the same—Appellate authority in the present case had remanded the matter to the Rent Controller with the direction to decide the issue of relationship between the tenant and new landlord by re-examining the issue of ownership/title of demised premises already decided by the Civil Court—Judgment of Civil Court could not be examined by the Rent Controller—Appellate Court had exercised powers not vested in it and order for modification/preparation of fresh decree and remand of the case was perverse and void—Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was set aide and order for preparation of fresh decree and remand of rent case were declared null and void—Tenants were directed by the High Court to vacate the demised premises within thirty days—Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 CLCN 22 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case SULTAN TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. VS STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN S. 15—Ejectment of tenant—Default in payment of rent—Payment of cumulative rent in lump-sum—Effect—Plea of tenant was that defaulted amount had been paid to the landlord—Eviction petition was allowed on the ground of default in payment of rent—Validity—Tenant was bound to pay rent regularly on monthly basis but he failed—Tenant could not be extended any benefit that rent was not demanded or collected by the landlord—Tenant had committed default in payment of rent in the present case—Default of even a single day could not be ignored—No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 CLCN 17 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case KASHIF IFTIKHAR VS MUHAMMAD IMRAN ASHFAQUE Ss. 19 & 15—Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199—Failure to cross-examine—Defence, striking off—Scope— Interim order—Interference through constitutional petition—Scope—tenant having failed to re-cross-examine the landlord despite several opportunities, Rent Controller struck off his right of defence—Validity—Rent Controller’s order was not arbitrary, vexatious, capricious and there was no jurisdictional error which requiring interference of High Court—tenant was provided several opportunities to re-cross-examine the landlord and produce his own witnesses, such opportunities were lost by tenant himself—Party aggrieved in such like situation should wait till final order was passed against it and then file an appeal under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979— Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 CLCN 9 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQUE AQEEL AKBER VS JAVED AHMED Ss. 15 & 18—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 115—Eviction of tenant—Wilful default— Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by tenant—Estoppel—Scope—Petitioner/tenant contended that he had purchased the demised shop from the previous owner—Respondent contended that he sent notice under S. 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 when he purchased demised property—Validity—Tenant in his written statement had admitted that originally the demised shop was with him on rent since the year 1971, but later on he purchased the same through registered sale deed in the year 1995—Said sale deed did mention the description of the demised shop—Purchase by the tenant was yet to be proved before Civil Court where the suit filed by him was still pending—Since tenant had admitted that originally the demised shop was with him on rent, hence until and unless the suit filed by the petitioner was finally decreed in his favour, he was a tenant of the premises under Art. 115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984— Appellate Court had found existence of tenancy, initially at the time of occupation of the demised shop had estopped the petitioner from questioning the title of the landlord—Tenant could not be allowed to challenge the title of landlord—Landlord, admittedly, issued notice under S. 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to the tenant after change of the ownership and the same was also replied by the tenant denying the relationship—Claim of the ownership of tenant was not yet established due to pendency of civil suit—Tenant had originally occupied the demised shop as tenant, hence relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the respondent and the tenant— Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to decide the intricate question of title—No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned orders passed by the two courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2894 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case YASIN KHAN VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NO.VII, DISTRICT JUDGE WEST, ISLAMABAD S. 17—Eviction of tenant—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant—Landlord having Iqrarnama of demised premises—Dispute of title—Rent Controller, jurisdiction of—Eviction petition was dismissed on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties—Validity—Rent Controller could exercise jurisdiction if there was pre-existing relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties—Eviction order passed by the Rent Controller against the person in possession of the premises who was not a tenant would be without jurisdiction—If a person in possession of premises was not a tenant then the owner of said premises would be entitled to institute a suit for ejectment in the Civil Court—Provisions of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 were attracted only where a person in possession of the premises was a tenant—If tenant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant then Rent Controller should determine such question through enquiry or recording of evidence as he might deem appropriate—Simple denial of relationship of landlord and tenant could not oust the jurisdiction of Rent Controller—If Rent Controller had decided that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant then proceedings should be terminated without deciding the main question of eviction—No lease agreement executed between the parties was on record—Nothing was on record that petitioner was owner of rented premises—Rent Controller could not determine the disputed question of title—Such questions had to be determined by Courts of plenary jurisdiction—Payment of rent was a sine qua non for the relationship of landlord and tenant—Petitioner had failed to prove that respondent had paid rent to him at any stage—Petitioner was bound to prove the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties—Impugned orders passed by the Courts below did not suffer from jurisdictional errors—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 902 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case ASAD AMIN VS NOOR HUSSAIN Ss. 15 & 17—Eviction petition—Default in payment of rent—Failure of landlord to make necessary repairs— Unilateral deduction of rent in lieu of repairs carried out by tenant—Effect—Landlord filed eviction petition on the ground of default in payment of rent and expiry of lease agreement—Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit outstanding rent—Tenant deposited partial amount of outstanding rent and adjusted the rest towards the amount he expended on the maintenance of rented premises—Rent Controller and Appellate Court concurrently ordered tenant’s eviction—Validity—Tenant had not pleaded the factum of any amount expended on the maintenance of demised premises and had taken the ground for the first time in his memo. of appeal—Any amount which the tenant might have spent unilaterally on the maintenance of demised premises or carrying out any repairs without the express permission of landlord could not be adjusted against the rent—In case demised premises was in need of repair or maintenance and the landlord refused to carry out the same, S. 15, Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 provided a mechanism for repairs to be carried out by a tenant and the amount expended to be deducted from the rent payable to the landlord—Tenant, before carrying out the repairs or maintenance, had neither requested the landlord nor filed application before Rent Controller for permission to carry out repairs and deduct the costs from the rent payable—Constitutional petition was dismissed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2019 MLD 590 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case SHUJA AHMED VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (WEST), ISLAMABAD Ss. 17, 24 & 25 (3)—Islamabad Residential Sectors Zoning (Building Control) Regulations, 2005, Cl. 2.17.3—Capital Development Authority Ordinance (XXIII of 1960), S. 49-C—Ejectment of tenant—Lease agreement, violation of— Expression “inquiry”—Scope—Eviction petition was moved on the ground of violation of lease agreement but same was dismissed—Validity—Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and lease agreement had been admitted—Tenant was running school in the demised premises in violation of lease agreement—Courts below were to consider each and every document brought on record while holding an inquiry—Oral evidence could not exclude the documentary evidence—Tenant had acknowledged the general terms of lease agreement except the usage of premises- –Rent Controller had to decide the matter within four months and it was not required to frame issues and record evidence in every case in the eviction proceedings—Capital Development Authority had imposed fine upon the landlord for non-confirming use of the demised premises—Courts below were to afford due opportunity of hearing to the parties while holding inquiry in the matter—If S.17 of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 was attracted in the matter then judgment in summary manner was to be passed as in the cases of default or expiry of lease—Tenant had indulged in the activities which were causing nuisance to the neighbour—Demised premises could be used for the purpose of living and not to run any commercial activity—Commercial usage of residential buildings was illegal and no premium could be given to any tenant to enjoy such illegality under the garb that landlord had permitted him to use the same—Findings recorded by the Courts below were against the law—Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside and eviction petition was allowed—Appeal was accepted, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 CLCN 44 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case AHMAD NADEEM ABBASI VS Chaudhry MUHAMMAD ISHAQ S. 17(2)(9)—Ejectment petition by the co-owner—Maintainability—Tentative rent—Non-payment of—Effect—Rent Controller passed order for deposit of tentative and future rent—tenant did not deposit tentative rent and eviction petition was accepted—Contention of tenant was that ejectment petition had been signed by only one (eviction) petitioner—Validity—Whenever landlord was reluctant or had refused to accept rent from a tenant then tenant should lose no time in making an application to the Rent Controller for deposit of rent in order to protect himself from being termed as a ‘rent defaulter’—tenant, in the present case, did not make such an application—tenant had committed default in payment of rent, in circumstances—Co-sharer of the property could move ejectment petition without impleading the other owners—No jurisdictional infirmity or error had been pointed out in the findings recorded by the Courts below—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. [Paras. 40, 45 & 53 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2019 YLR 1967 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief CourtBookmark this Case NASIR AKHTAR VS SHER ALAM S. 13—Ejectment petition—Personal bona fide need of landlord—Availability of alternate land—Scope—Landlord filed ejectment petition claiming that rented premises was required for use and occupation of his son as he was jobless—Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition—Appellate Court allowed the appeal and directed the tenant to vacate the rented premises— Validity— Landlord was required to produce either oral or documentary evidence to substantiate his claim— Landlord failed to prove his claim/plea taken in the ejectment petition and had simply recorded his own statement before Rent Controller, hence his case was without evidence—Onus to prove his personal bona fide need was on the landlord— Landlord had to prove his case on its own strength by producing cogent evidence and had no right to claim that his suit might be decreed on the weakness of opposite party in the suit– -Landlord had, in addition to the disputed shop, two other shops adjacent to it and another shop had already been vacated by the tenant during pendency of litigation—Landlord could establish business of his son in the aforesaid vacated shop—Judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court was set aside and that of Rent Controller was restored—Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2018 SCMR 1586 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Haji BAZ MUHAMMAD KHAN VS NOOR ALI S. 12—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 62—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Maintainability— Novation agreement—landlord and tenant entered into an oral agreement to sell the subject property—Tenant failed to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time, whereafter the matter was referred to arbitration— Arbitrators gave their award, in terms whereof the tenant was to vacate the shop under his tenancy and hand it over to the landlord and in consideration thereof the landlord was to pay a sum of Rs.1,400,000/- to the tenant—Such decision rendered by the arbitrators was not challenged by any of the parties in any legal proceedings—Tenant failed to handover the possession of the shop, as a result of which the landlord also did not pay him the amount determined by the arbitrators—landlord then sold the shop to a third party, which filed eviction proceedings against the tenant after which the tenant on his part filed a suit for specific performance of his oral agreement to sell with the landlord—Held, that the legal effect of the arbitrators’ decision, which remained unchallenged was that the tenant gave up both his right to seek specific performance of the contract under the oral agreement as well as his tenancy rights on the condition of receiving Rs.1,400,000/- from the landlord—In such circumstances, the tenant could not have sought specific performance of the oral agreement that stood novated in terms reflected in the arbitrators’ award signed and acknowledged by both the parties—Oral agreement to sell came to an end and in consequence thereof the tenant was only entitled to receive Rs.1,400,000/- and handover the possession of the shop to the landlord, thus the suit for specific performance was not maintainable—Supreme Court directed that the landlord shall deposit Rs.1,400,000/- in the Supreme Court within a period of sixty days which shall then be paid to the tenant; that there shall be no extension in time for any reason whatsoever and failure to deposit the amount within such period shall result in dismissal of present appeal and the tenant shall be entitled to retain the possession of the shop in his capacity as tenant of the third party who were the successor-in-interest of the landlord; that the tenant shall be entitled to receive the amount deposited in the Supreme Court after the possession of the property was handed over to the third party—Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2018 SCMR 1441 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAYAT VS MUHAMMAD MISKEEN (DECD.) Ss. 13 & 15—Ejectment of tenant—Ground of bona fide personal need of landlord—Tenant impugned order of Appellate Court whereby tenant’s ejectment was ordered on ground that landlord had established bona fide personal need—Validity—Sole testimony of landlord was sufficient to establish personal bona fide need, if such statement of landlord was consistent with averments made in ejectment application—Impugned order being in accordance with such principle of law, leave to appeal was refused by Supreme Court. Citation Name: 2018 PLD 81 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case WAQAR ZAFAR BAKHTAWARI VS Haji MAZHAR HUSSAIN SHAH 2004 SCMR 456, 2005 CLC 1119, 2005 SCMR 1166, 2009 SCMR 846, 2015 MLD 1740, 2015 SCMR 1494, 2016 CLC 1051, 2016 CLC 1850, 2016 MLD 103, 2017 SCMR 330, PLD 1988 SC 190, PLD 2005 SC 530, PLD 2008 SC 779, PLD 2013 SC 775, PLD 2016 SC 730, PLD 2017 SC 99, Ss. 6 & 17(2)(ii)(b)—Eviction of tenant—Grounds—Expiry of tenancy period—After expiration of the tenancy period, a tenant, though could continue to hold over the possession of the rented premises, but his tenancy was rendered invalid, in that, it had come to an end, and if there was no express consent of the landlord to extend the tenancy period the tenant shall be guilty of having infringed the conditions of tenancy, rendering him liable to be evicted under S.17(2)(ii)(b) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001. Citation Name: 2018 SCMR 581 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN VS BRITISH HEAD AND FOOTWEAR STORES S. 8(1)—Fair rent, fixation of—Agreement for payment of rent on monthly lump sum basis—landlord seeking calculation of rent on per square feet basis—landlord produced evidence in respect of prevalent per square feet rent of similar premises situated in similar circumstances, in the same or adjoining locality but the courts below ignored such evidence on the grounds that the similar building was relatively a new one and secondly, that the parties had agreed for a lump sum rent instead of per square feet and therefore, increase claimed in rent on the basis of per square feet could not be allowed; held, that restraint exercised by the Court below from fixing fair rent on per square feet basis for the reason that the parties had agreed to a rent on lump sum basis appeared to be misplaced—Even where there was an agreement between the landlord and tenant for payment of monthly lump sum rent, such an agreement could not be a clog on the powers of the Rent Controller to fix fair rent on square feet basis in accordance with the prevailing norms and to ensure that the fair rent so determined was in consonance with the quantum of rent of similar premises situated in similar circumstances in the same or adjoining locality—Courts below failed to take into consideration the fact that rent for premises situated in similar circumstances in the same locality on the ground floor facing main road was being charged at per square feet and not in lump sum—Consequently, the yardstick for fixation of rent should have been the rent on per square feet basis as was being charged by the landlord from his other tenants of the same locality and not on lump sum basis—Average rate of rent which the landlord was charging from his other tenants of the same locality was around Rs.22/- per sq. ft. per month—Supreme Court keeping in view the location of the subject premises, fixed the fair rent of the subject premises at Rs. 22/-per square feet per month for the ground floor and Rs.18/- per square feet per month for the mezzanine floor—Appeal filed by the landlord was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2018 SCMR 581 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN VS BRITISH HEAD AND FOOTWEAR STORES S. 9—Fair rent, fixation of—High Court ordering increase of 25% in rent after every three years—Question as to whether such increase was justified—landlord had applied for fixation of fair rent in the year 1992 and such application remained pending with the Rent Controller for almost 13 years and thereafter before the High Court for almost 10 years—Increase of 25% after every three years allowed by the High Court after taking into consideration subsequent events and prevailing circumstances and to avoid multiplicity of the litigation and for doing complete justice between the parties did not call for any interference—Appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2018 SCMR 443 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN VS SAMI-UR-REHMAN S. 15(2)(ii)—Ejectment of tenant—Grounds—Default in payment of rent—Person other than the tenant depositing rent with the Rent Controller—Tenant who ran a business in the rented premises as a sole proprietary concern converted the same into a private limited company—Pay orders for rent which were previously sent in the name of the tenant were now sent in the name of the company—landlord refused to accept such pay orders, where after the company started depositing the rent with the Rent Controller; held, that admittedly the tenant had failed to pay the rent and it was the company which offered the rent to the landlord and on refusal deposited the same with the Rent Controller—Since the company admittedly was not the tenant of the landlord, therefore, the landlord was right in declining to receive the rent and such deposit with the Rent Controller could not save the tenant from the consequences of default in payment of rent in terms of S. 15(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979— Supreme Court directed the tenant to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord within 30 days—Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2018 SCMR 443 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN VS SAMI-UR-REHMAN S. 15(2)(iii)(a)—Ejectment of tenant—Grounds—‘Handing over of possession’ of rented premises to some other person without consent of landlord—General principles—Tenant converting his sole proprietary concern into a private limited company—Where the tenant was holding a tenancy right in his personal name and subsequently formed a company for the expedience of business and parted with possession by allowing the company to undertake the business in that premises, then notwithstanding the fact that the company was conducting the same business and the original tenant had become its Director or share holder would not save the tenant from the consequences of ejectment on grounds of “handing over of possession”— Where, however, the land¬lord recognized status of a company as its tenant then on change of Directors ejectment proceedings on account of “handing over of possession” would not be sustained as the status of a company was totally different and independent of its Directors—Any change of Directors by way of their addition or removal would not affect the status of the tenant-company and, therefore, would not provide a cause for ejectment on grounds of “handing over of possession”. Citation Name: 2018 SCMR 443 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN VS SAMI-UR-REHMAN S. 15(2)(iii)(a)—Ejectment of tenant—Grounds—‘Handing over of possession’ of rented premises to some other person without consent of landlord—Scope—Contention of landlord was that tenant was liable for ejectment for “handing over of possession to some other person ” as according to the landlord the tenant without the written consent of the landlord converted his sole proprietary concern into a private limited company and handed over the possession of the said premises to the limited company which was a juristic person and a separate entity and therefore, had sublet the premises and rendered himself liable to ejectment; held, that the tenant had converted his sole proprietary concern into a private limited company and at present the said private limited company was conducting business in the subject premises—Rented premises had been handed over by a natural person i.e. tenant to a juristic person i.e. private limited company—Distinct legal entity independent and separate from its Directors had come into exclusive possession of the rented premises which was running business therein, paying taxes in its own name, depositing rent with the Rent Controller from its own accounts and such change had been brought without the consent or even the knowledge of the landlord which exposed the tenant to the consequences as provided under S. 15(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979—‘Handing over of possession” of the rented premises to some other person under S. 15(2)(iii)(a) of the Ordinance exposed a tenant to eviction—Supreme Court directed the tenant to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord within 30 days— Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2018 PLD 828 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN VS DEVAN SUGAR MILLS LIMITED 1992 SCMR 1908, PLD 1988 SC 221, Ss. 11, 12(2), 47, O.IX, R. 13, O. XXI, Rr. 99, 100, 101, 102 & 103—Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963), S. 24—Execution of ejectment order—tenant seeking successive remedies against the same impugned order on substantially same set of facts and pleadings—For a tenant confronted with ex-parte order striking out its defence resulting in his ejectment order, quite a few remedies may be available against such order; namely appeal under S. 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963; application under O.IX, R.13 C.P.C.; application under S.12(2), C.P.C.; application under O. XXI, Rr. 99 to 103, C.P.C. and not the least application under S.47, C.P.C.—All such remedies armed the tenant/ judgment debtor to effectively resist ex-parte ejectment order passed against it—In the present case respondent-tenant, chose not to file appeal under S. 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 against the ejectment order but had chosen to invoke provisions of S.12(2), C.P.C., which application was dismissed on merits by the Executing Court and maintained by High Court—tenant after almost five years from date of ejectment order, ventured to invoke S.47, C.P.C. on substantially same facts and grounds—Even if it was assumed that grounds as available under S.47, C.P.C. to question executability, discharge or satisfaction of ejectment order passed as a consequence for non-compliance of tentative order, set down different parameters to resist and defend execution of eviction order, then too, all such grounds were very much available when first application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was initially made—Case of the landlord was squarely covered by Explanation IV of S.11, C.P.C.—No reservation was made or avenue kept open while deciding application under S.12(2), C.P.C. either by Executing Court or for that matter by the High Court for the tenant to explore other remedy—Where the tenant failed to raise all objections as may be available at the time when execution was resisted by invoking one out of few other available remedies then he was precluded by his conduct to raise any such objection, and all such objections and challenges, if any, would be deemed to have been raised and decided against him—After exhausting one of the remedies under S.12(2), C.P.C. against the order striking out defence, judgment debtor could not be allowed to go on expedition to venture another remedy for the same malady, which though available was not invoked—Permitting such course would be nothing but abuse of the process of law and would amount to encourage multiplicity of proceeding, which could not be approved—tenant was directed to vacate the premises within a period of nine months subject to payment of rent and utility charges, and it was directed that in case of default and or failure to hand over vacant and peaceful possession on or before expiry of period allowed, writ of possession, without notice shall be issued with police aid and breaking open the lock—Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2018 PLD 35 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IQBAL HAIDER VS IST ADJ, KARACHI CENTRAL Ss. 16(1) & 16(2)—Right of defence struck off for non-compliance with tentative rent order—Institution of civil suits by the tenant denying relationship of landlord and tenant—Such suits per se, would not be sufficient for tenant to refuse compliance of a tentative rent order of the Rent Controller under S. 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Citation Name: 2018 YLR 2276 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Haji HABIBULLAH VS ANJUMAN-E-ISLAMIA, BALOCHISTAN 1981 SCMR 1200, 1987 CLC 591, 1993 CLC 1409, 2005 SCMR 357, PLD 1970 Lah. 455, PLD 1970 Lahore 455, PLD 1976 SC 781, PLD 2003 Lahore 389, PLD 2018 SC 81, Ss. 106 & 116—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 17 (2)—Ejectment of tenant—Lease deed—Proof—Procedure– -Lease deed in favour of tenant had expired—Ownership of suit property was in favour of landlord—Only one marginal witness of lease deed was produced—Neither the scribe of lease deed nor rest of marginal witnesses were produced—Lease deed had not been proved by the tenant in circumstances—Tenants could not claim to be tenants at- will nor they had been able to prove their status as a tenant holding-over—Tenants did not have a right to retain possession of suit property anymore—Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below did not suffer from any mis-reading or non-reading of evidence—Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2018 YLR 1240 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case SAIFULLAH VS NIAMATULLAH 1980 SCMR 593, 1992 SCMR 1170, 1996 SCMR 1178, 2000 SCMR 1292, 2000 SCMR 903, 2012 SCMR 854, PLD 1982 SC 218, S. 13—Ejectment of tenant—Bona fide personal need of landlord—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant—Scope—Landlords were owners of demised premises—Question of title had no relevance in the proceedings before the Rent Controller—Point for determination before the Rent Controller was the relationship of landlord and tenant over the demised premises—Tenant had no right to raise any objection with regard to ownership of landlord—Where tenant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and such relationship stood proved, no other course was left for the Rent Controller but to order his eviction—Statement of landlord on oath which was consistent with his averment made in the eviction petition was neither shaken nor there was anything to contradict the same, such statement would be sufficient for acceptance of ejectment application—If landlord failed to get the possession of demised premises within stipulated period or re-let it to some one else within a period provided by law, tenant had right to recover the possession of said premises—No illegality, irregularity, infirmity or perversity was pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller—Tenant was granted two months’ time to vacate and handover the demised premises to the landlord—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2018 MLD 1466 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case GHULAM FAROOQ VS DOLAT KHAN S. 13—Ejectment of tenant—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by tenant—Scope—Contention of tenant was that he had purchased the demised premises from the brother of landlord through an agreement— Eviction petition was dismissed for lack of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties—Validity—Tenant had failed to establish the authority of brother of landlord to enter into an agreement and handover possession of demised premises on the basis thereof—Tenant just to continue his possession had taken the plea of purchase of premises in question through brother of landlord—Landlord was owner of demised premises—Ownership might not be a determining factor to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties—Relationship of landlord and tenant, however, had been established between the parties—Tenant was first to vacate the premises in question and then seek his remedy if he desired so—Impugned order could not be sustained which was set aside and eviction petition was allowed—Tenant was directed to handover the vacant possession of the premises in question to the landlord within a period of two months subject to payment of monthly rent—Appeal was allowed in accordingly. Citation Name: 2018 MLD 355 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case JAFFAR KHAN VS Syed MOEAD AHMED Art. 129—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A—Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.15— Ejectment petition—Right to cross-examination—Scope—Closure of right to produce evidence—Effect— tenant contended that he was not given fair opportunity to lead evidence—landlord submitted that tenant failed to cross-examine as well produce his own witnesses—Validity—Article 10-A of the Constitution guaranteed a valuable right to a party to challenge veracity of a witness—If opportunity of cross-examination was declined to the party, such evidence as a general rule was not legally admissible—Contesting parties must undergo test of cross-examination for ascertaining truth or otherwise of their claims failing which adverse assumption could be drawn against them under Art. 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—Maxim ” audi alterm partem” would be applicable to the case of the tenant in circumstances—High Court remanded the matter with direction to provide full opportunity to the parties to produce their respective evidence—First appeal was partially allowed. Citation Name: 2018 MLD 485 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MALAK ABDULLAH KHAN VS MUHAMMAD RASOOL KHAN 2011 CLC 717, 2013 CLC 562, PLD 2007 SC 45, PLD 2009 SC 453, S. 13—Ejectment of tenant—Default in payment of rent—Bona fide personal need of landlord—Scope—Landlord was duly cross-examined but no doubt or mala fide in the grounds so raised in the eviction petition were noticed— Genuineness of ground of personal need of landlord could not be doubted and he had discretion to select any of his property for his own business or for the business of his children—Question of personal use of demised premises had been established on record—Courts below had not given due consideration to the contentions of landlord—Bona fide requirement of demised premises by the landlord was doubted without any convincing reasons and sufficient grounds- –Trial Court did not order to the tenant to deposit rent which was illegality when relationship of landlord and tenant had not been denied—Landlord had established the grounds of default and personal use of demised premises in a satisfactory manner—Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside—Tenant was directed to vacate the suit premises within a period of two months—Second appeal was allowed according. Citation Name: 2018 MLD 476 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case SHER REHMAN VS Mst. KHARO 1985 SCMR 770, 1992 SCMR 2103, PLD 1986 Pesh. 67, S. 56—Ejectment of tenant—Second revision before Board of Revenue—Scope—Member Board of Revenue had jurisdiction to entertain second revision under S. 56 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tenancy Act, 1950—Tenant, in the present case, was defaulter of payment of produce and had kept the proceedings prolonged to remain in unlawful possession on the suit property—Tenant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant but failed to prove that someone else was his landlord—Petitioner was in possession of the suit property as a tenant from the last more than a decade without paying a single penny or any produce to the landlord—Tenant was not entitled to any relief and Board of Revenue had rightly allowed revision of the landlord—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2018 YLRN 252 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR-UR-REHMAN VS FAISAL KAMAL S. 13— Eviction petition— Wilful default—Scope—Delay in compliance of tentative rent order—Striking off defence—Scope—Petitioner/ tenant referred Medical certificates regarding his ailment for the first time before the High Court—Effect—Tenant contended that he was ill so he submitted application to deposit rent with the delay of three days in compliance of tentative rent order of the Court, for which he had medical certificates— landlord contended that medical certificates were never submitted before the two Courts below—Validity—Provisions of S.13(6) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 were mandatory in nature—Once the Rent Controller had directed the tenant for deposit of tentative rent before 15th of every month, then it was mandatory for the tenant to deposit the said rent as per direction of the Rent Controller—Tenant had defaulted, to deposit the rent—Plea of the tenant regarding his ailment seemed to be an afterthought as he neither took such plea nor produced the medical certificates before the two Courts below—Said medical prescriptions/ certificates could not be taken into consideration by the High Court—Even delay of one day was considered to be wilful default under S.13(6) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959—No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned orders passed by the two Courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2018 YLRN 95 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case KIFAYAT ULLAH VS IBRAHIM S. 188—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 195(1)(a), 144 & 417(2-A)—Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant—Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger—Appeal against acquittal—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution case was that accused was tenant of the appellant and used to cultivate his land—Ban was imposed by the Deputy Commissioner, restraining the tenant from removing or causing to remove any crop, 2015 from the threshing floor unless he had delivered his due share of produce according to Rewaj of the landlord—Accused, despite ban, cut the crop and violated the conditions imposed by the Deputy Commissioner—Record showed that ban was imposed under S.144, Cr.P.C. by the Deputy Commissioner—Report, in the present case, was lodged by the appellant and not by the Deputy Commissioner—Section 195(1)(a), Cr.P.C. revealed that no court could take cognizance of the offence punishable under S.188, P.P.C. except on the complaint of the public servant, who promulgated S.144, Cr.P.C.—Present FIR was not lodged by the concerned District Magistrate—In case of violation of the order passed by the District Magistrate, machinery of law could only be moved by filing complaint by order of such public servant who promulgated the order or by his superior and under no circumstances by a private person, who was landlord—No illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment was found— Accused, in circumstances, was rightly acquitted by the Trial Court—Appeal against acquittal was dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2018 CLCN 109 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case REHMAT GHANI VS TAIMUR KHAN 1983 SCMR 1064, 1989 CLC 106, 1991 CLC 1364, 1991 SCMR 1376, 1991 SCMR 215, 1994 SCMR 572, 1997 MLD 2262, 2000 CLC 1841, 2000 SCMR 556, 2002 SCMR 429, S. 13—Ejectment of tenant—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant—Scope—Death of landlord– -Ejectment petition by a co-sharer—Maintainability—Ejectment petition was allowed concurrently—Validity— Relationship of landlord and tenant had been established by way of rent agreement between the parties—Denial of such relationship was only to deprive the landlords from the legacy of their deceased father—Successors-in-interest would step into the shoes of theirs father—Even co-sharer was entitled to file ejectment petition—Rent Controller had properly appreciated the evidence available on record—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2018 CLCN 96 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case ALI HASSAN VS AMIN ULLAH 1992 SCMR 1170, 1992 SCMR 1290, 2003 SCMR 1476, PLD 1984 SC 17, PLD 1991 SC 242, PLD 1992 SC 401, PLD 2009 SC 453, S. 13—Eviction petition—Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant—Willful default by tenants—Scope— Pendency of suit for specific performance filed by tenants—Effect—Bona fide personal need—Scope—Nonmentioning of version alleged by the tenants in pleadings as well as in their evidence—Effect—Petitioners/tenants contended that they had entered into agreement to sell regarding demised shops for which they had made substantial payment to another tenant who had admittedly purchased from the landlords the property in question—Landlords contended that they needed demised shops situated at the ground floor of the building, for the expansion of their hotel business being run at upper floor of the same building—Validity—Manager (Munshi)/attorney of the landlords appeared before the Rent Tribunal and remained consistent, inter alia, that though landlords had sold portion of building to one tenant (other than the petitioners) but the properties under the possession of petitioners had not been sold to them(petitioners)—Said attorney was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but he remained stuck to said version, however, petitioners during cross-examination had not denied their status as tenants and had been paying rent till February, 2012 and they defaulted after alleged execution of the agreement to sell between the parties—Petitioners during cross-examination, also admitted that the alleged payments made to said tenant-turned-owner were neither mentioned in their reply nor in their affidavits—All petitioners made similar statements that they were cheated by said tenant-turned-owner, however, not even oblique reference was made towards him in the replication as well as in the affidavits before Rent Tribunal—Petitioners had based their claim on the basis of alleged sale agreement which was the subject matter of suit for specific performance—Authenticity of sale agreement was yet to be proved at the trial before competent court of law and till then their tenancy under the landlords could not be denied—Trial Court had rightly rejected the evidence of the petitioners as their exhibited documents i.e. cheques and receipts, having not been proved, could not be relied upon—No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned judgments passed by the two courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2018 CLCN 89 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case ABDUR REHMAN VS Rana FEROZ UD DIN 2017 MLD 605, S. 13(4)— Eviction of tenant—Personal bona fide need of landlord—Scope—Non-appearance of son of landlord (for whom premises was needed) as witness—Effect—Availability of other shops owned by landlord—Effect— Petitioner/tenant contended that son of landlord, for whom personal need was claimed, was not produced in evidence before Rent Tribunal and that other shops of landlord were also lying vacant in the subject premises— Respondent/landlord contended that appearance of his son was not essential and it was his prerogative to select any of his shop for personal occupation—Validity—Landlord had stated that his son was jobless and he intended to establish business for his son in suit shop and witnesses of landlord were also consistent on said point—Petitioner himself admitted in the cross-examination that all the shops of landlord were in occupation of some other tenants, meaning thereby that there was no shop vacant for occupation, use and business of the son of landlord—If after order of eviction, son would not occupy the suit shop within one month or would re-let within two months then in terms of S. 13(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, petitioner could apply to Rent Controller for restoration of possession of the shop—Non-appearance of son of landlord in witness box was neither essential nor fatal to the petition for eviction—No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned judgments passed by two Courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2018 YLR 1818 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD MUJAHID FAREED VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE Ss. 15, 22 & 13(1)(f)—Ejectment of tenant—Default in payment of rent and structural change by tenant in the demised premises without consent of landlord—Effect—Oral tenancy—Scope—Eviction petition was allowed and application for leave to contest was dismissed—Contention of tenant was that he was regularly paying rent to the landlords—Validity—Demised premises was rented out to the tenant in August, 2014 through an oral agreement for two years—Tenant paid rent till April, 2015 but thereafter he became defaulter—Tenant despite expiry of period of tenancy did not vacate the premises in question nor paid rent since April, 2015—No written agreement between the parties existed with regard to construction over the rented premises—Construction over demised premises without written agreement or consent of landlord would be upon the risk and cost of tenant—Any structural change in rented premises without written consent of landlord was itself sufficient ground for eviction—Relationship of landlord and tenant had been admitted by the parties—Tenant had failed to show receipts of deposit of rent up to date—Courts below had rightly directed the tenant to vacate the demised premises and pay arrears of outstanding rent at the rate of Rs. 14000/- per month from May, 2014 till eviction—Concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below could not be interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below—Appraisal of evidence was the function of Courts below and if findings were based on proper appraisal of evidence then same could not be interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2018 YLR 759 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sh. TAUSEEF HUSSAIN VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 2015 YLR 1617, S.15—Ejectment petition—Dispute as to expiry of tenancy agreement between the parties—Dismissal of application of tenant for leave to contest—Scope— Non-recording of evidence—Scope—Inconsistent pleas of landlord—Effect– -Tenant contended that Rent Tribunal had wrongly rejected his application to leave to contest as the dispute between the parties demanded recording of evidence—Landlord contended that after expiry of tenancy agreement tenant was liable to be evicted and Appellate Court had wrongly accepted appeal of the tenant—Validity—According to the contents of ejectment petition tenancy between the parties was oral in nature starting from the year 2001 whereas tenant contested the matter on the ground that initially the premises were hired on rent by his father on the basis of lease agreement in 1984 and after the death of his father he had been put up in the premises as a tenent— Tenant produced an agreement in support of his contention during the proceedings at Appellate Court—Inconsistent pleas on the part of the landlord on different occasions fully justified acceptance of application filed by the tenant seeking leave to contest—Legality of agreement regarding lease in perpetuity against Pagri of Rs. 1,50,000/- would be adjudged by the Rent Tribunal after recording of evidence of the parties and in case landlord succeeded that the same was not properly executed document he would be entitled for decision in his favour regarding eviction of the tenant—Landlord on the one hand denied lease between the parties but also offered for repayment of amount of Pagri subject to the condition of eviction from the premises by the tenant—High Court observed that it was not feasible to determine said question without recording of evidence of the parties and directed the Rent Tribunal to decide the ejectment petition after recording the evidence of the parties—Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2018 MLD 1850 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ZAFAR IQBAL VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE RAWALPINDI 2016 SCMR 834, PLD 2013 SC 829, Ss. 21 & 22—Eviction petition—Willful default—Failure of the tenant to move for leave to contest within prescribed time—Notice to the tenant was not served as required by law—Trial Court initiated the eviction petition as an ordinary civil suit but passed eviction order under Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009—Act of the Court—Effect— Petitioner/tenants contended that Trial Court treated the eviction petition as civil suit which caused failure to move application for leave to contest, so eviction order against them was illegal—landlord contended that eviction order was right as the tenants had failed to move application for leave to contest within time which was mandatory for resisting the eviction petition—Validity—Record revealed that procuring the attendance of the tenants was not in accordance with the law—Section 21 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 stipulated that Rent Tribunal would issue notice in the form prescribed as per Schedule appended with the Act, for a date not later than ten days through process server, registered post acknowledgment due and courier and such notice should accompany the copies of the application and the annexed documents—Section 22 of the Act provided that tenants were obliged to submit application for leave to contest within ten days from their first appearance in the Court but the accumulative effect of both the provisions was that consequences would only come into play when the tenants were served with the process as required under S. 21 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009—Trial Court, while taking cognizance of the proceedings, treated the eviction petition as an ordinary suit and after assigning the same a number of civil suit, proceeded with the eviction petition as civil court—Mandatory provisions of Ss. 21 & 22 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 were not taken into consideration so there was possibility that the tenants were under the impression that they were defending the civil suit—Once court itself had treated the eviction petition as civil suit and proceeded as such, the tenants were surely taken by surprise thereafter when the Court shifted to the provisions of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009– -No body could be penalized due to the act of the Court and before invoking the penal provisions contained in the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, it was obligatory for the Court, seized with the matter, to adhere to the mandatory provisions of law as contained in S. 21 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009—Eviction order was, thus, passed in oblivion of the mandatory provisions of law—Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal preferred by the tenants without applying judicial mind—High Court set aside impugned orders passed by the two Courts below, however, landlord would be at liberty to file eviction petition afresh—Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2018 MLD 1231 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ASGHAR ALI VS TANVIR AHMAD S. 15—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.115—Ejectment petition—Estoppel, principle of—Applicability—Title of landlord, challenge to—Scope—Once a tenant was always a tenant—Tenant, during the subsistence of tenancy, had no right to challenge the title of landlord. Citation Name: 2018 MLD 1231 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ASGHAR ALI VS TANVIR AHMAD S.15—Ejectment petition—Ownership of landlord—Presumption—Landlord may not be essentially an owner of the property and ownership may not always be a determining factor to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; however, in normal circumstances in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the owner of the property by virtue of his title is presumed to be the landlord and the person in possession of premises is considered tenant. Citation Name: 2018 MLD 1231 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ASGHAR ALI VS TANVIR AHMAD Ss.5, 6, 7, 9 & 15—Ejectment petition—Oral tenancy agreement between landlord and tenant—Penal consequence— Payment of fine—Tenancy might not be necessarily through a written document but could be oral—Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 did not debar entertainment of ejectment petition in case of oral tenancy—Object of the law was to compel the parties to enter into a tenancy agreement within the view and scope of the provisions of Ss.5, 6 & 7 of the Act (read together)—Penalty had been provided by the law for the breach of the obligations, envisaged thereby, in that, where the tenancy agreement was not so entered and a landlord or the tenant approached the Rent Tribunal for the enforcement of his right(s) under the Act, he had to pay a fine, the non-registration of the rent agreement—Oral tenancy was an irregularity that entailed penal consequences—Ejectment petition could be entertained subject to payment of fine as enshrined in S. 9 of the Act. Citation Name: 2018 MLD 162 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUREED HUSSAIN VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE Ss. 15 & 21—Eviction petition—Service of notice to tenant—Procedure—Non-appearance of tenant despite personal service—Ex parte proceedings against tenant—Application of tenant to set aside ex parte proceedings was dismissed– -Tenant denied personal service—Mechanism of service—Purpose of legislature—Scope— Petitioner/ tenant contended that he was neither served nor any notice was received by him so the Rent Controller had wrongly dismissed his application for setting aside of ex parte proceedings—Respondent/ landlord contended that due course for the service of tenant was adopted and despite personal service of tenant, he remained unable to appear before the Rent Controller—Question related to the appearance of the petitioner in response to a notice served upon him which was denied—Language of S. 21(1) of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 was clear in terms that the process of appearance for a summary case would be made not only by the Process Server but in addition to this, the notice was to be sent to the tenant through registered acknowledgement-due and courier service—Notice, as prescribed in the Sched., would contain the copies of application and the documents relied upon, annexed with the eviction petition—Scrutiny of the notice, which was allegedly served upon the petitioner (tenant) reflected that same had not fulfilled the requirements of law and only copy of ejectment petition was annexed with the notice, however, other documents filed along with the ejectment petition were not sent to the petitioner thus violating S. 21(2) of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009—Record showed that on the very next date after institution of ejectment petition, the respondent produced copy of postal receipt and the Court also observed that the petitioner had been duly served according to the report of Process Serving Agency, and the ex parte proceedings were initiated against the petitioner— Intention of legislature while attaching the condition of registered post acknowledgment-due and courier service was not merely procedural but the real intention behind was that as the matter related to summary proceedings, so the effective service must be accompanied with acknowledgement-due card—Purpose of acknowledgement-due card was that the actual service upon the respondent was to be effected and in response, if the respondent did not opt to appear in the Court, the Court had option to proceed against him ex parte—Although the Rent Controller got receipt of postal envelope cover, but did not observe about the status of acknowledgement-due card whether the same was served upon the petitioner (tenant) or otherwise—Fact of non-submission of acknowledgement-due card was completely overlooked by Rent Controller when the petitioner had categorically denied his personal service and also stated the same in his application supported with affidavit—Record revealed that on alleged notice served upon the petitioner, there was no mentioning of any I.D. card number of either of the petitioner or witnesses from where it could be established that the petitioner was the same person to whom intimation had been sent through the notice, therefore, without any proper identification of the alleged witnesses as well as the person who was served with the notice, could not be considered valid—All such aspects were completely over-sighted by both the courts below—Rent Controller had also not examined that the specification of rented house mentioned in the ejectment petition without having any number of the house and merely stated that the house was situated in particular Khatta with specific share—Such location of residence of petitioner for the purpose of service could not be identified with the mentioned specification– -Petitioner who resided in a densely populated area of the city where the streets, roads and other nearby famous places existed, but, the notice, which was allegedly served by the Process Server, did not depict any exact location of the residence—Notice merely mentioned that the petitioner had been served personally—Without ascertaining the exact location of the house where the petitioner resided, it was not possible for the Process Server to identify and that too without any I.D. card or without associating any notable person of the locality, therefore, the service upon the actual person could not be said to be effected—Rent Controller, therefore, did not observe the myth of provisions of S. 21(3)(b) of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 and wrongly accepted the service of notice upon the petitioner as correct, and proceeded with ex parte order, which was against the law and fact and could not be allowed to be sustained on the principle of maxim: “Acommuni observatia non est recedendum”—Provisions of S. 21(4) of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 with the word “may” would provide the tenant to file leave to contest along with the application for setting aside ex parte proceedings but such direction was not mandatory in nature, hence, mere nonfiling of the application for leave to contest was not fatal for adjudication of application for setting aside ex parte proceedings—Court could not pass order of its liking solely on the basis of its vision and wisdom, rather it was bound and obliged to render decision in accordance with law—In the present case, the orders passed by both the courts below were in violation of express provisions of law, therefore, the powers of High Court, under constitutional jurisdiction, to interfere in such an order on the touchstone of the grounds laid down and the parameters set forth in Art. 199 of the Constitution was permissible—Impugned orders of the two courts below were set aside and the ejectment petition filed by the landlord would be deemed to be pending before the Rent Controller—Parties were directed to appear before the Rent Controller—Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2018 CLC 1146 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HANIF VS SNGPL S. 2(1)(b)—Suit for declaration and injunction—Correction of Natural Gas bill—“Consumer” and “assignee of consumer”—Scope—tenant, locus standi of—Plaintiff was running a small hotel in a rented shop where a commercial Natural gas meter was installed and he had been regularly paying gas bills—Plaintiff was aggrieved of exorbitant amount shown in a bill which did not commensurate with his actual consumption—Trial Court dismissed the suit on grounds that plaintiff who was a tenant was not covered under definition of ‘consumer’ so he could not file suit— Validity—Meanings of word ‘Assignee of consumer’ and characteristic/authorization of limited certain power upon tenant under rent agreement were quite akin to each other and a tenant was not ousted from definition of ‘consumer’— Plaintiff fell with definition of ‘assignee of consumer’—Even consumer empowered tenant (assignee) through registered rent agreement as well as special power of attorney to challenge any disputed bill of Sui gas—Such documents were available before Trial Court but it did not apply its judicial consideration to such significant documents while deciding suit—Appeal was continuation of suit and landlord/owner of property had appointed plaintiff as special attorney and also rectified filing of suit and appeal by plaintiff on his oral consent/instructions and plaintiff was competent to file suit against defendants—Plaintiff was consumer and landlord had also authorized him to file suit against department but such aspects escaped from judicial consideration of Trial Court and misconstrued provisions/definitions of ‘consumer’ as prescribed in section 2(1)(b) of Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016- High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and remanded case for decision afresh—Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2018 CLC 468 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IJAZ AHMAD MIRZA VS CIVIL JUDGE 1995 SCMR 766, S. 17—Ejectment petition—Compromise deed/agreement between landlord and tenant outside court—Scope—When a factual controversy had been settled between the parties through an agreement outside the court and the same had been given effect by an order of the court of competent jurisdiction, then the same could not be resiled subsequently and the parties were under a legal obligation to abide by the terms and conditions thereof. Citation Name: 2018 CLC 342 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AMMAD ASLAM CHEEMA VS TARIQ ALI SHEIKH Ss. 13(6) & 17—Execution petition for recovery of arrears of rent—Scope—Rent Controller passed order for payment of rent till decision of case but tenant did not comply with the said order—Rent Controller proceeded to accept the eviction petition—landlord filed execution petition for recovery of arrears of rent but same was dismissed concurrently—Validity—Rent Controller had not finally determined the arrears of rent while passing the eviction order—Rent Controller was empowered to determine final amount of rent due from the tenant—landlord was not dissatisfied by the eviction order and accepted the decision in toto without seeking any further remedy—Executing Court could not go beyond the decree—Decree of Rent Controller did not empower the executing court to become a civil court rather its status remained as persona designata—Decree must be executed in terms as it was derived—Rent Controller, in the present case, after passing the eviction order became functus officio and was precluded to add any other direction except the vacation of rented premises—Calculation of arrears of rent could not be treated as decree of Rent Controller to be implemented through executing Court for recovery of arrears of rent—Executing Court had no authority to recover arrears of rent—Impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below were well reasoned and had been passed in accordance with law—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2018 CLC 161 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case KABIR AHMAD VS The ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE 1980 SCMR 834, 2007 SCMR 818, 2011 CLC 1464, PLD 1988 SC 190, PLD 1988 SC 228, PLD 2013 SC 255, PLD 2016 SC 995, Ss. 7, 15 & 20—Ejectment petition—Ground of default in payment of rent—Disagreement between the parties regarding rate of monthly rent, security amount and duration of tenancy—Terms of rent agreement— Effect— Adjustment of monthly rent into security amount—Scope—Rent Tribunal partially allowed leave to defend by ordering vacation of demised property and called for evidence on rate of monthly rent and security amount— Appellate Court remanded the matter—landlord contended that Appellate Court had wrongly remanded the case as tenant had committed wilful default in payment of monthly rent—Tenant contended that he could not be declared defaulter as his security amount could be adjusted in rent due—Validity—Rent Tribunal could adopt the procedure of deciding the matter on the basis of facts established on the record and there was no need of recording of evidence for determination of a fact established on the record—Under S.7(1) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 the tenant was obliged to make payment of rent to the landlord in the mode and by the date mentioned in the rent agreement—Rent agreement did not provide that the due rent was to be adjusted from the security amount— landlord was to refund the security amount at the time of vacation of premises by the tenant, therefore, availability of security amount with the landlord could not absolve the tenant to pay rent within time—Tenant had failed to show payment of rent to the landlord in accordance with the terms of agreement as per S.7 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009—Impugned order passed by Appellate Court being not sustainable in the eye of law, was set-aside and High Court restored the order passed by the Rent Tribunal—Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.