P L D 1987 Karachi 460 (PLP)
ABDUL LATIF‑‑Appellant Versus MUNIR AHMAD‑‑Opponent
| Citation | P L D 1987 Karachi 460 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | ABDUL LATIF‑‑Appellant Versus MUNIR AHMAD‑‑Opponent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1987 Karachi 460 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1987 Karachi 460 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1987 Karachi 460 (PLP) (ABDUL LATIF‑‑Appellant Versus MUNIR AHMAD‑‑Opponent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Naveed Ahmad for Appellant. Ikram Ahmad Ansari for Respondent. Date of hearing, 5th May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 15 (2)(ii)‑‑Eviction of tenant‑‑Wilful default‑‑Proof‑‑Conduct of landlord‑‑Acceptance of rent periodically‑‑Effect‑‑Rent receipts produced on record undisputedly showing landlord being in habit of accepting rent periodically in lump sum‑‑Tenant, held, could not be treated wilful defaulter in case he did not pay rent to landlord as required to be paid by him under law‑‑Where landlord failed to inform tenant that acceptance of rent in lump sum by him in past was an act of condonation and that same would not be treated as standard practice in future, and tenant would have to pay rent in future every month in accordance with law and that failure of tenant in that context would make him liable to eviction, default would not be deemed to have been committed. Abdul Aziz v. Abdul Ghani 1986 S C M R 1857 ref.
Judgment & Decree
While attorney of the landlord was in box being cross‑examined, he was confronted with six receipts showing that rent was accepted by the landlord in lump sum in past and the witness admitted the correctness and authenticity of six receipts. The receipts are described as under:‑
"(1)Exh.4‑B Rent accepted for 12 months. March 1980 to March 1981. (2) Exh.4‑C Rent accepted for 4 months. November 1979 to February 1980. (3) Exh. 4‑D Rent accepted for 6 months. May 1979 to October 1979. (4) Exh.4‑E Rent accepted for 4 months. January 1979 to April 1979. (5) Exh. 4‑F Rent accepted for 7 months. July 1978 to December 1978. (6) Exh.4‑G Rent accepted for 6 months. January 1978 to June 1978." There is no dispute about the fact that on behalf of the landlord rent has been accepted in the past on six occasions as stated above. The question which arises for consideration is whether these six occasions are enough to say that the landlord was/is in habit of the accepting rent periodically and in lump sums. In the instant case it clearly appears that this practice was continued from January 1978 and there are two such occasions when rent was accepted for 12 months and 7 months respectively. On two such occasions rent was accepted for 6 months and on the other two occasions rent was accepted for 4 months. I am of the view that past conduct of the landlord which is proved by the six rent receipts is sufficient evidence in proof of assertion that landlord is in habit of accepting rent periodically. In this view I am fully supported by the case of Abdul Aziz v. Abdul Ghani (19$6 S C M R 1857). If the landlord wanted this impression about past conduct to be erased, then he should have put tenant on notice or informed him that acceptance of rent in A the past in lump sums was an act of condonation and the same is not be treated as standard practice and rent has to be paid every month when it is due and failure of tenant in that context would make him liable to eviction, only then tenant would be deprived of this particular defence. In the instant case landlord does not claim to have done so. For the facts and reasons stated above I hold that no default is committed. In the result impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order .as to costs. H . B. T. /A‑83/ K Appeal dismissed.