2022 PLP 361 (CLC)

Urgency granted. 2 to

5. The Petitioner is claiming to be the tenant of an apartment / office bearing No. 302 at 3rd Floor in a tenement built over the Plot No.18C, Ittehad Lane-1, DHA, Karachi. It is alleged that Respondent No.4 has put the Petitioner under tenancy through an agreement dated 01.07.2013, wherein the Petitioner is running his business of advertising agency. As per memo. of petition, the Petitioner has paid rent regularly and he has also deposited an amount of Rs.60,000/- as security towards the tenancy. It is submitted that regarding some embezzlement, an FIR has been lodged by the National Bank of Pakistan (The State v. Sadaf Siddiqui and others), which was pending adjudication before the Special Court (Offences in Banks), Sindh at Karachi (Respondent No.2) and during the pendency of the said case, Respondent No.4 applied / offered for public sale/auction of the assets held under in his name including the aforementioned property to settle the liability against him. The Respondent No.2 has issued directions to the learned Official Assignee for public auction of the said properties including the premises in question. It is alleged by the Petitioner that regarding the said criminal case and the auction, the Petitioner came to know on 26.06.2021 when a notice dated 23.06.2021, issued by the learned Official Assignee (the Respondent No.2), was served upon him. It is alleged by the Petitioner that as per another notice dated 03.07.2021, the Petitioner was directed to handover peaceful possession of the premises in question on 08.07.2021 by 11:00 a.m., which also indicates that in case of failure, he would be forcefully dispossessed. Through the instant petition, the Petitioner is seeking direction / declaration that he cannot be dispossessed from the premises in question being tenant without due course of law. We have heard the learned counsel for Petitioner and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that being a tenant under tenancy agreement, the Petitioner cannot be dispossessed even on account of sale of the property. He submits that at the most in case of sale, the Petitioner may become the tenant of new purchaser/ owner of the property, but he can only be dispossessed through proceedings before the Rent Controller. He further submits that either the learned Official Assignee initiate rent proceedings or he may proceed to sell the property "as it is" and then the Petitioner will be able to deal with the new purchaser/owner. In support of his case, the Petitioner is relying upon a tenancy agreement dated 01.07.2013 (Annexure-P-1), photocopy of which is available at page

19. It is worth noting that the said agreement was allegedly executed in the year 2013, but the stamp paper indicates that the same was purchased on 09.04.2009. It is also worth noting that the said agreement does not bear the names and signatures of witnesses although such columns were available. A tenancy agreement has been described under Section 5 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the said Section is reproduced as under: 5.(1) The agreement by which a landlord lets out any Agreement between premises to a tenant shall be in writing and if such agreement is landlord and tenant not compulsorily registerable under any law for the time being in force, it shall be attested by. signing by, and sealing with the seal of, the Controller within whose jurisdiction the premises is situate or, any Civil Judge or First Class Magistrate. (2) Where any agreement by which a landlord lets out any premises to a tenant is compulsorily registerable under any law for the time being in force, a certified copy of the registered deed and where the agreement is not so registerable, the original deed duly attested under subsection (1), shall be produced and accepted in proof of the relationship of the landlord and tenant: Provided that nothing in this section shall affect any agreement between the landlord and tenant immediately before coming into force of this Ordinance. From the above provisions of law, it is quite clear that a tenancy agreement is required to be attested either by a Rent Controller or Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate concerned. The rent agreement, relied upon by the Petitioner is also suffering from such deficiency. As per subsection (2) of Section 5 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the status of the Petitioner as tenant can only be accepted if it is duly attested as per subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to establish his right of tenancy. We are of the view that the present attempt by the Petitioner is nothing but to frustrate the proceedings of auction initiated by the learned Official Assignee. It is also note worthy that the proceedings before the concerned Court as well as before the learned Official Assignee are pending for quite some time, but now when the sale is about to be taken place / finalized, the Petitioner has jumped into the proceedings, which speaks volume about his status and character. We are of the view that at this juncture of time and due to the afore-mentioned reasons, the instant petition is not maintainable, as such the same is dismissed in limine along with the listed applications. KMZ/H-27/Sindh Petition dismissed.