2025 PLP 1968 (MLD)

Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, J.

Through this Petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the Judgments dated 05.03.2020 and 16.11.2019 passed by the learned Appellate Court and Rent Controller, deciding the Eviction Application of Respondent No.1, directing the Petitioner to vacate the Premises-Shop No.1, at Plot No.603, Main Road, PIB Colony, Karachi the Demised Premises, on the ground of committing default in payment of rent.

2. Messrs Zayyad Khan Abbasi and Ch. Tariq Yousuf, Advocates for the Petitioner have argued the matter at length and stated that the concurrent findings result of misreading of evidence and misinterpretation of the provisions of the relevant Law, viz. the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979-the Rent Law; in particular, Sections 10 and 15 [2] (ii), inter alia, concerning the time period of sixty days to pay rents, if, there is no tenancy agreement; stated that the Rent Application is filed with mala fide intention and that is why personal bona fide need of Respondent No.l was discarded. The Legal Team of Petitioner has cited the following Case Law to augment their arguments. i) 2001 SCMR 1888 [Hirjibhai Behrana Dar-e-Meher through Attorney v.Mesars Bombay Steel Works, Partnership Firm, through Partner] ii) 1992 SCMR 46 [Hakim Ali v. Muhammad Salim and another] ii) 1997 MLD 98 [Karachi] [Sher Afgan v. Shaikh Anjum Iqbal] iv) 2022 SCMR 55 [Mushtaq-ul-Aarifin and others v. Mumtaz Muhammad and others] v) PLD 2007 SC 460 [Sh. Fateh Muhammad v. Muhammad Adil and others] vi) 2016 CLC Note 128 [Ijaz Ahmed Khan v. Jahanzeb Khan and others] vii) 2019 YLR 1967 [Nasir Akhtar v. Sher Alam) viii) 2017 YLR 2276 [Lahore] [Abdul Rehman and others v. Ghulam Fatima and others] ix) PLD 2012 Sindh 92 [Ilyas Ahmed v. Muhammad Munir and 10 others] (x) 1995 SCMR 330 1 [Sir E.H. Jaffar and Sons Ltd. v. Sultan Karam Ali and others] xi) 2017 CLC 625 [Sindh) [Naeem Noor Muhammad alias Naeem Cyehwala)

3. The above arguments are refuted by M/s. Mahmooda Suleman and Muhammad Rizwan Naich, learned Advocates for Respondent No.1 (Landlord). They stated that findings of both the Fora are based on a proper appraisal of evidence, which cannot be set-aside in writ jurisdiction. The Legal Team of Respondent No.1 has cited the following Case Law. i) PLD 1982 SC 465 [Allah Din v. Habib] ii) 1989 CLC 662 [Karachil [Tajammal Hussain Shah v. Mst. Taj Aslam] iii) 1994 MLD 955 (Karachi) [Abdul Rasheed v. Hanifur Rahman] iv) 1994 SCMR 1507 (2) [Muhammad Subhan and another v. Mst. Bilquis Begum through Legal Heirs and 3 others] (v) 1997 CLC 216 [Karachi] [Abdul Mateen v. Muhammad Hussain (late)] vi) 1999 MLD 1014 [Haji Qasim (Deceased) through L.Rs v. Syed Rahim Shah) vii) 2000 MLD 186 [Ghulam Nabi and another v. T. Ismail] viii) 2000 CLC 1140 [Karachi] [Inam Ahmed and another v. Hakimuddin and another] ix) 2009 CLC 177 [Karachi] [Muhammad Yakoob v. Mst. Z ibunnisa and 2 others] x) 2020 CLC Note 29 [Shafiq-ud-Din and others v. Mst. Shahida Ghazala and others] xi) 2020 CLC 254 [Sindh] [Nizar Noor and others v. Ameer Ali and others] xii) 1992 SCMR 46 [Hakim Ali v. Muhammad Salim and another]

4. Arguments heard and Record perused.

5. The above argument of the Petitioner's Legal Team has been considered by the learned Rent Controller in the Impugned Order and he disagreed with the same, on the basis of the evidence adduced by both the Petitioner and Respondent.

6. Interestingly, the Petitioner was given further opportunity to lead the evidence at the Appellate stage, inter alia, to produce the Postal Receipt of the Money Order through which he sent the rents of the four months, from July, 2014 onwards; that is, the period in which the Petitioner is allegedly committed default.

7. The Petitioner in his evidence has admitted that he had sent the rent for four months, that is, July, August, September and October, 2014, through Money Order in the month of October, 2014; admitted that as per agreement, he "was bound to pay monthly rent in advance latest by 5th of each calendar month".

8. It has come on record that earlier also, the Petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent from 1st July 2005 till 31 December 2011, which was paid/cleared subsequently in installments; although, this fact is not the subject dispute of the present proceeding, but shows the conduct of the Petitioner.

9. The argument of Petitioner's Counsel, that since no written agreement exists, therefore, in terms of the above provisions of the Rent Law, the monthly rent of July 2014 and following three months was correctly paid in the month of October and no default is committed, is a misconceived one, and aptly discussed in the impugned Decisions, inter alia, that since it is admitted by the Petitioner in his testimony] that as per the agreement he had to pay the rent by 5th of each month, therefore, rent of July 2014 should have been paid within 15 (fifteen) days, which admittedly was not done. It is further clarified that it is not necessary that there should be a written Tenancy Agreement, but the standard practice between a Landlord and Tenant to pay and receive the rentals also constitute an agreement, should be adhered to while paying rents. If the acceptable practice between the Landlord and Tenant is that rent is paid by 5th of each month, then Subsection 2 (ii) of Section 15 will be applicable, that is, rent should be paid within fifteen days when the rent is due.

10. The Case Law cited by the Petitioner does not need an elaborate discussion in view of the above undisputed factual aspect of the case, because the Cited Decisions are n respect of the interpretation of second part of Subsection 2 (ii) of Section 15 [ibid), that is, payment of rent within sixty days when it has fallen due; non-payment of rent carries a penal consequence, thus, evidence given by the Parties must be construed strictly and in the event of a probable doubt, it must be resolved in favour of tenant rather than Landlord; reiterating the established Rule, that Plaintiff cannot get benefit from the weaknesses of the Defendant's evidence alone, rather Plaintiff has to prove his case on its own strength.

11. Both the Impugned Judgments are handed down after proper appreciation of the evidence and relevant provisions of the Rent Law; hence, the jurisdiction is exercised correctly. Constitution Petition is dismissed. Since, the demised Premises is commercial, therefore, 30 (thirty) days' time is granted to the Petitioner, for handing over physical, peaceful and vacant possession to the Respondent; or, after the lapse of 30 (thirty) days, the learned Rent Controller will issue Writ of Possession without any further Notice.

12. There will be no order as to costs. SA/Z-8/Sindh Petition dismissed.