1999 PLP 1932 (CLC)

On the other hand Mr. Kamaluddin, Advocate for the respondent contended that the agreement of sale is not a genuine document as the signature of the respondent/landlord has been forged on the said document. He further submitted that without prejudice to the above contention even when the sale agreement is existing unless and until it is finalised and property is handed over to the purchaser, the purchaser is liable to pay rent, while in this case the appellant tenant stopped payment of rent from the date the alleged agreement was signed. I have heard both the counsel and have perused the pleadings and the case‑law cited before me. As per record the receipt, dated 19‑5‑1992 for Rs.7,000 which is rent for the period from 1‑1‑1991 to 19‑2‑1992 indicates that the appellant tenant did not pay monthly rent as stipulated in the agreement or even if the agreement had expired as statutory tenant and as such became p defaulter. The learned Rent Controller while passing the rent order has referred to the alleged sale agreement "forged simple sale agreement" without recording evidence in this regard. The counsel for the respondent/landlord supported the order passed by the learned Rent Controller as according to him no objections/counter‑affidavit was filed to his application under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance`. There is a statement of the Advocate of the tenant/appellant, dated 1‑2‑1994 stating that he was "astonished to know today that order, dated 21‑12‑1993 is on record while have visited this Honourable Court upto 23‑12‑1993 to know the order but there was no intimation and the file was lying in the Chamber and without proper/regular announcement, today I have come to know that the order is passed on 21‑12‑1993 without any announcement and intimation to the concerned parties". The Rent Controller has passed the order on the said statement as "application being false stands dismissed". Application under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance was filed on 25‑5‑1993 and objections were filed on 15‑7‑1993. The case diary, dated 1‑12‑1993 indicates that both the Advocates were present and arguments were heard and the case was fixed on 21‑12‑1993 for orders. Then again on 21‑12‑1993 diary indicates that both the Advocates were present when the application under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance was adjourned to 1‑2‑1994. On 1‑2‑1994 affidavit‑in‑evidence and application under section 16(2), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance was received in Court ... the diary sheet which is not very legible is as under:‑‑ "both the Advocates are present. Order ‑passed on ... adjourned to 24‑2‑1994." Diary sheet, dated 24‑2‑1994 indicates that the junior of the appellant/tenant's counsel refused to accept the copy of the application under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance and directions were issued that the same be served through bailiff. The order‑sheet does not indicate as to when the rent order, dated 21‑12‑1993 was announced. The learned Rent Controller in passing the rent order has relied on the case of Khusro Alam Hydri v. Mk. Iqbal Begum 1981 CLC (Kar.) 347, wherein it was held that "no stipulation having been made about continuation or cessation of tenancy prior to execution of contract for sale of property tenant deemed to be a tenant holding over relationship of tenant and landlord continued, liability of appellant/tenant to pay rent to the respondent/landlord continued and tenant on failure to pay rent is liable to ejectment". In the said case there was no stipulation in regard to the payment of rent in the sale agreement while in the present case clause (2) of the alleged agreement is as under:‑‑ (2) That the second party has paid the rent of the shop in question upto the month of June, 1992 and this agreement has come into operation from July, 1992 and the second party shall not pay the rent from July, 1992. " In view of this clause the case relied on was not applicable to the present case. However, this does not mean that the appellant/tenant should stop e the payment of rent to the respondent/landlord as held in the case of Iqbal and 6 others v. Mst. Rabia Bibi and another PLD 1991 SC 242:‑‑ "It appeared to be a well‑received rule inasmuch as in Allah Yar and others v. Additional District Judge and others 1984 SCMR 741 and Mian Muhammad Abdullah v. District Judge, Sahiwal . and 6 others PLD 1985 Lah. 467 it was laid down unambiguously that ejectment proceedings could not be stayed or stalled on a plea that the tenant in possession holds such an agreement. Even pendency of a suit for specific performance of the agreement was held no ground to avoid eviction of the tenant by the Rent Controller. Since the plea raised in defence by the appellants was not effective, the next order to be passed was one for eviction. Muhammad Idrees v. Mst. Safia Begum and others 1986 SCMR 795 was an instance where. straightaway ejectment was ordered on failure of such defence. Be that as it may, in some recent judgments this Court has taken the view that in cases like the present one, where the sale agreement or any other transaction relied upon by a tenant is seriously and bona fide disputed by the landlord, the appellant/tenant cannot be allowed to retain the possession during the litigation, where he continues to deny the ownership of the .landlord who had inducted him as a tenant, without any condition and/or reservation. It has been ruled that in such cases although the tenant has a right to adduce evidence and take a short time for that purpose to remain in occupation despite having get up a hostile title which is denied by the landlord; but on the well‑known bar of estoppel in this behalf, he (the tenant) cannot be permitted to remain in occupation and fight the litigation for long time ‑‑ even for decades. In this case it is more than a decade that the appellants have been able to keep the possession on a claim which the landlord asserts is false .... " Relying on the rule laid down in the above case the appellant/tenant could not be excused for stopping rent even if the sale agreement existed as per his contention. Accordingly, as laid down in various other cases "in fairness to both the sides while the appellant/tenant is at large to prosecute his case wherein he should try to establish his claim but same should not be at the cost of the respondent/landlord and as' such either he should continue to pay rent till the decision in this regard is reached or he should be evicted till the matter is finally decided and he succeeds. In the case of Muhammad Ihsan v. Muhammad Hafeez 1995 ‑SCMR 1380 wherein it was held that:‑‑ ‑ Mere pendency of the suit filed by the tenant against the landlord relatable to the title of property in question, would be of no significance unless the suit raised serious doubt about landlord's title to the said property in such circumstances neither the Rent Controller nor for that matter any other Authority or Court hierarchy would automatically stay ejectment proceedings." Next case relied on is Jan Muhammad v. Syeda Khatoon and 5 others 1996 MLD (Kar.) 1845, wherein it was held that the "Rent Controller has been t authorised to determine all questions arising between the parties and relating to ' execution, discharge or satisfaction of ejectment order, but could not assume the powers of a Civil Court to enter into question of title raised by intervenor/objector in respect of premises within limited scope of authority conferred on him by section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. Although I am conscious of the fact that Court diary nowhere indicates the announcement of the date of rent order but the counsel for the appellant/tenant instead of moving application in this regard only contained himself to filing of statement, dated 1‑2‑1994. In the absence of any action on behalf of the appellant/tenant, non‑compliance of the rent order and relying on D the case‑law decided by the superior Courts I have no 'hesitation in dismissing this appeal. Order accordingly. H:B.T./A‑200/K Appeal dismissed.