2014 PLP 979 (SCMR)
Haji RAUF — Petitioner Versus ABDULLAH QAISER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 979 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Muhammad Ather Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | Haji RAUF — Petitioner Versus ABDULLAH QAISER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 979 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 979 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Muhammad Ather Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 979 (SCMR) (Haji RAUF — Petitioner Versus ABDULLAH QAISER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th May, 2013.
- 3. We have heard Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner.
- 4. The main contention of the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner was that no notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) was served on him for the change of ownership. He submitted that notice under section 18 of the Ordinance is mandatory in nature and without it being served the tenant is not liable to pay the rent and therefore he was not in default and ejectment order could not be issued against him. He, however, conceded that many times he had tried to pay the rent to the respondents but they refused to accept the same upon which he sent a letter dated 23-5-2011 along with cheque of arrears amounting to Rs.60,000 which was refused to be accepted by the respondents. However, the learned counsel had conceded that after the refusal of the respondents to accept the cheque he did not take any action as prescribed by section 10(3) of the Ordinance i.e. by sending a postal money order or by depositing the rent with the Rent Controller within whose jurisdiction the premises is situated.
- 6. Although it is an admitted fact that no notice under section 18 of the Ordinance was issued but the petitioner had admitted that he had the knowledge of the change of the ownership and therefore it was his duty to approach the new landlord and pay the rent or in case of refusal, follow the procedure prescribed under section 10(3) of the Ordinance. The petitioner is therefore in default from 14-2-1999 and has accepted the same when he sent a letter dated 23-5-2011 along with a cheque for arrears amounting to Rs.60,000 which was refused to be accepted by the respondents. We are of the view that despite non-service of notice under section 18 of the Ordinance the petitioner is not absolved of the liability to pay the rent and if he had deposited the rent in MRC before the Rent Controller or send the same by postal money order, we would have accepted his plea of bona fide but the default of more than 13 years cannot be condoned on any ground. When we were about to dismiss the case and grant some time to the petitioner to vacate the premises, we were informed by the learned Advocate Supreme Court that executing proceedings has already been taken place as a result of which the petitioner has vacated the disputed premises.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 8-2-2013 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in C.P. No.S-939 of 2012)
Ss. 18 & 15
Constitution of Pakistan Art. 185(3)
Change of ownership of rented premises
Nature of notice under S.18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979
Scope
Tenant/petitioner impugned order of High Court whereby tenant's constitutional petition against ejectment order passed against him, was dismissed
Contention of the tenant was that, despite change of ownership of the premises, no notice under S. 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was served on him, which was mandatory in nature, and without the same, the tenant was not liable to pay rent, and was therefore not in default
Although no notice under S.18 was issued to the tenant, the tenant had however, admitted that he had knowledge of change of ownership and it was therefore tenant's duty to approach the new landlords and pay rent and in case of refusal on part of landlords to accept the same, tenant was to follow the procedure prescribed under S.10(3) of the Ordinance
Tenant had been in default of rent for a long time and had accepted this fact when he sent a letter along with a cheque for arrears of rent, which was refused by the landlords
Supreme Court observed that despite non-service of notice under S.18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 the tenant was not absolved of the liability to pay rent and had he deposited the rent in the court or sent the same by postal money order, plea of bona fide on part of the tenant could be accepted, however, in the present case, default of more than 13 years could not be condoned on any ground
Leave to appeal was refused, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, J.
This civil petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned High Court of Sindh, Karachi dated 8-2-2013 in Constitution Petition No.S-939 of 2012 whereby the learned High Court of Sindh had dismissed the constitution petition filed by the present petitioner against the judgment dated 18-7-2012 passed by the learned Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi whereby he had upheld the order dated 10-2-2012 of the IVth Rent Controller: Karachi East in Rent Case No.167 of 2011 whereby ejectment application filed by the present respondents was allowed and the petitioner was directed to vacate the demised premises within 30 days.
2. The petitioner was a tenant of the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents who died on 14-2-1999 but since then upto the time the ejectment application was filed and even till today the petitioner has allegedly failed to pay rent to the respondents. Hence they had filed ejectment application and all the three Courts below had held the petitioner to be in default and allowed the ejectment application filed by the respondents and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises.
3. We have heard Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner.
4. The main contention of the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner was that no notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) was served on him for the change of ownership. He submitted that notice under section 18 of the Ordinance is mandatory in nature and without it being served the tenant is not liable to pay the rent and therefore he was not in default and ejectment order could not be issued against him. He, however, conceded that many times he had tried to pay the rent to the respondents but they refused to accept the same upon which he sent a letter dated 23-5-2011 along with cheque of arrears amounting to Rs.60,000 which was refused to be accepted by the respondents. However, the learned counsel had conceded that after the refusal of the respondents to accept the cheque he did not take any action as prescribed by section 10(3) of the Ordinance i.e. by sending a postal money order or by depositing the rent with the Rent Controller within whose jurisdiction the premises is situated.
5. We have examined the case in the light of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant law and the record of the case.
6. Although it is an admitted fact that no notice under section 18 of the Ordinance was issued but the petitioner had admitted that he had the knowledge of the change of the ownership and therefore it was his duty to approach the new landlord and pay the rent or in case of refusal, follow the procedure prescribed under section 10(3) of the Ordinance. The petitioner is therefore in default from 14-2-1999 and has accepted the same when he sent a letter dated 23-5-2011 along with a cheque for arrears amounting to Rs.60,000 which was refused to be accepted by the respondents. We are of the view that despite non-service of notice under section 18 of the Ordinance the petitioner is not absolved of the liability to pay the rent and if he had deposited the rent in MRC before the Rent Controller or send the same by postal money order, we would have accepted his plea of bona fide but the default of more than 13 years cannot be condoned on any ground. When we were about to dismiss the case and grant some time to the petitioner to vacate the premises, we were informed by the learned Advocate Supreme Court that executing proceedings has already been taken place as a result of which the petitioner has vacated the disputed premises.
7. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that this petition in question is meritless and therefore the same is dismissed. Leave to appeal refused. KMZ/R-2/SC Petition dismissed.