2012 PLP 1035 (YLR)
G.S. NOORWAL through L.Rs. — Petitioner Versus NAFEES AHMED and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1035 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | Faisal Arab, J |
| Parties | G.S. NOORWAL through L.Rs. — Petitioner Versus NAFEES AHMED and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1035 (YLR)?
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 2012 PLP 1035 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: Faisal Arab, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1035 (YLR) (G.S. NOORWAL through L.Rs. — Petitioner Versus NAFEES AHMED and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hameed Shaikh for Petitioner.
- Hasin Ahmed for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- Nemo for Respondent No.4.
- Nemo for Respondent No.5.
- Date of hearing: 5th October, 2011.
- 5. It has been noted that the date on the notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is 15-7-2006, but it is said that it was dispatched in the name of deceased tenant on 26-7-2006. There is no acknowledgement receipt to show that the notice was delivered on 27-7-2006. The dispatch of rent through pay order on 30-8-2006 and upon its refusal the dispatch of money order on 8-9-2006 and upon return of money order the deposit of rent in MRC on 29-9-2006 clearly shows that at all material times the tenant acted with necessary dispatch to tender the rent to the new owners. Even if it is assumed that the notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was dispatched on 26-7-2006 the fact remains that it was dispatched in the name of deceased tenant and there is no documentary proof that it was delivered on tenant's office on 27-7-2006. In such circumstances, the default, if any, was of technical nature and ought to have been condoned by the Courts below. There is no cavil to the proposition of law cited by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 that rent is to be dispatched within 30 days of the receipt of notice, but in the present case there is no proof that such notice was received by the tenant. Even under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance through an amendment benefit has been given to the tenant in case of commission of one default if there is no previous default and though such benefit has not been provided under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, but the benefit under the law in peculiar circumstances of the present case can be extended when the dispatch of rent through pay order is dated 30-8-2006.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.18 & 15
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Original tenant of the premises had died and his son (petitioner) had become the statutory tenant of the premises
Respondent (landlord) purchased the premises from the original owner and became the new landlord
Said new landlord dispatched notice under S.18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 intimating change of ownership and upon not receiving rent under the statutory period of 30 days, filed an ejectment petition before the Rent Controller on ground of non-payment of rent by tenant(petitioner)
Said ejectment petition was allowed by Rent Controller
Validity--Point which needed to be examined was whether said notice was duly served upon the tenant, and whether any wilful default in the payment of rent was committed by the tenant
Said notice had been dispatched in the name of the deceased tenant and there was no acknowledgement receipt on record to show that the same was delivered on the date claimed by the landlord
Tenant had dispatched rent through pay order and upon refusal of landlord to receive the same had dispatched the rent through money order and upon the return of the money order had deposited the rent in court
Tenant at all material times, clearly, acted with necessary dispatch to tender the rent to the new owners
Even if it was assumed that the notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was dispatched and received on the dates claimed by the landlord, the fact remained that the same was dispatched in the name of the deceased tenant and there was no documentary proof that it was delivered to the tenant on the purported date
Default, if any, was of a technical nature, and ought to have been condoned by the courts below
Rent was to be dispatched within 30 days of the receipt of notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 but there was no proof that such notice was received by the tenant
Under S. 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 benefit had been given to the tenant in case of commission of one default if there was no previous default
Such benefit, though, had not been provided under S. 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, could be extended under the law in peculiar circumstances of the case
Orders of courts below were set aside, and constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly. 1991 MLD 1088; 2008 CLC Kar. 1598; 1989 CLC Kar. 757 and 1992 SCMR 2400 ref.
Judgment & Decree
FAISAL ARAB, J.
The petitioner G.S. Noorwala was the tenant in respect of premises bearing Office No.10 (New No.B-01), situated at first floor of Farooq Manzil (Old Sadiq Manzil), RB-6/107, Arambagh Road, Saddar Town, Karachi. After the death of the petitioner, his son Dr. Mushtaque Noorwala, become statutory tenant being one of the heirs of deceased tenant. In July, 2006, the respondents Nos.1 to 3 purchased the property from the previous owner. A notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, intimating change of ownership, was dispatched and upon not receiving rent within the statutory period of 30 days as envisaged under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 they filed rent case on the ground of default in the payment of rent for the months of July, 2006 and onwards.
2. The points which need to be examined in this case are, whether notice was duly served and if so when it was served and, whether any wilful default in the payment of rent was committed by the petitioner.
3. The case of the respondents Nos.1 to 3 (landlords) is that notice dated 15-7-2006 under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 was dispatched on 26-7-2006 which was delivered on 27-7-2006 and when rent was not tendered within 30 days period, the default in payment of rent stood established. The counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 3, during the course of his arguments, placed reliance on 1991 MLD 1088, 2008 CLC Karachi 1598 and 1989 CLC Karachi 757.
4. The case of Mushtaque Noorwala, who is son of the original tenant and present sitting tenant, is that the notice was never received through registered post A/D but it was found on the floor of office on 28-8-2006 and that too in the name of his deceased father and thereafter the rent for the months of July to December, 2006 was offered and upon refusal was dispatched through registered post on 30-8-2006 and upon refusal it was sent through money order on 8-9-2006 and after return of the money order he deposited the same in Court in Miscellaneous Rent Case and, therefore, no wilful default has been committed. In support of his contention, the counsel for the petitioner relied on 1992 SCMR 2400.
5. It has been noted that the date on the notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is 15-7-2006, but it is said that it was dispatched in the name of deceased tenant on 26-7-2006. There is no acknowledgement receipt to show that the notice was delivered on 27-7-2006. The dispatch of rent through pay order on 30-8-2006 and upon its refusal the dispatch of money order on 8-9-2006 and upon return of money order the deposit of rent in MRC on 29-9-2006 clearly shows that at all material times the tenant acted with necessary dispatch to tender the rent to the new owners. Even if it is assumed that the notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was dispatched on 26-7-2006 the fact remains that it was dispatched in the name of deceased tenant and there is no documentary proof that it was delivered on tenant's office on 27-7-2006. In such circumstances, the default, if any, was of technical nature and ought to have been condoned by the Courts below. There is no cavil to the proposition of law cited by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 that rent is to be dispatched within 30 days of the receipt of notice, but in the present case there is no proof that such notice was received by the tenant. Even under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance through an amendment benefit has been given to the tenant in case of commission of one default if there is no previous default and though such benefit has not been provided under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, but the benefit under the law in peculiar circumstances of the present case can be extended when the dispatch of rent through pay order is dated 30-8-2006.
6. Vide short order dated 5-10-2011 this petition was allowed, whereby the order dated 4-9-2009 passed by the Rent Controller-VI, Karachi (South) in Rent Case No.276 of 2007 and the judgment dated 19-5-2010 passed by the Additional District Judge-VII, Karachi South in First Rent Appeal No. 314 of 2009 were set aside and these are the reasons of he same. K.M.Z./G-4/K Order accordingly.