2013 CLC 119 (PLP)

FAISAL ARAB, J.

Petitioners are landlords of the premises bearing No.194-C, Block-2, PECHS, Karachi. After purchasing the said property they served notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the tenant/respondent and also filed ejectment case on the grounds of default and personal need. On the ground or default, the case of the respondent is that he deposited the rent in Court within the period prescribed by the law. As to the second ground of personal need, it was claimed that during the pendency of the case another apartment of the petitioners fell vacant but as the same was not occupied, the personal need was not established. Rent case was dismissed and so also the appeal. Against the concurrent findings of the lower Courts, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

2. Counsel for the petitioners contends that after the petitioners became owners of the premises the respondent did not offer rent directly to them and straightaway deposited the rent in the Court. He relied upon cases reported in 2001 SCMR 1140 and PLD 1993 Karachi 50, wherein it has been held that the tenant has to first offer rent to the landlord and upon refusal he has to remit rent through money order and if the money order is also not accepted only then he has to deposit the same in Court. He has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 8 of the written statement of the respondent, wherein it has been stated that soon after receipt of notice under section 18 of SRPO, 1979, on 2-1-1998, he started depositing rent in Court in MRC No.26 of 1998.

3. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the requirement for tendering rent to the landlord directly, as contained in section 10(2) of the Ordinance, 1979 is directory in nature and not mandatory. Once the rent has been deposited in Court within the time prescribed by law then eviction cannot be ordered. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the cases reported in 2008 CLC 1499 and 2008 CLC 1598. As regards personal need he contended that failure of the petitioners to occupy the apartment located in the same building could not be considered as bona fide.

4. It is obligation of the tenant to tender rent directly to the landlord. The course to remit rent through money order or depositing the same in Court is to be adopted only when the landlord refuses to accept the same. If this procedure is not adopted then in every case where the landlord and tenant have grudge against each other the tenant would deposit the rent in court and the landlord would be running around in court for recovery of the rent amount. Rental income is main source of income of most of the landlords. The tenant, therefore, has to first offer the same directly to the landlord. If without offering the same deposit in Court is accepted as valid tender then it would cause tremendous inconvenience to the landlord. Landlord might not know for months together that rent is being deposited in Court. In such circumstances, landlord assumes that default has been committed and files rent proceedings and only then he comes to know that rent for the defaulted period is lying deposited in Court. The inconvenience and hardships caused to the landlord account of tenant's direct deposit of rent in Court without tendering it directly to the landlord would give a tool in the hands of tenant to create hurdles in the way of the landlord to timely receive monthly rent. This cannot be permitted. Such a concept would strike at the very purpose for which properties are let out on rent. Once a property is let out to the tenant then a landlord cannot seek tenant's eviction merely because he so wishes. The law stands behind the tenants and protects tenancy rights. The tenancy rights can only extinguish if the circumstances provided in rent laws exist. Such a protection is subject to the prime obligation of the tenant i.e. to pay rent regularly to the landlord directly. Without discharge of this prime and foremost obligation of the tenant, the rent laws would not grant any protection to tenancy. This obligation to pay rent directly emanates from the provision of section 10(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. In my view it is mandatory and condition precedent for continuation of tenancy rights. Such a prime obligation cannot be termed as directory. The case reported in 2001 SCMR 1140 (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners is clear that remission of rent through money order is only permissible when there is refusal on the part of the landlord to receive it directly. Hence the eviction order ought to have been passed once it comes in evidence that there was no offer of rent directly to the landlord and has been deposited in Court straightaway. Hence the respondent committed default in payment of rent by not offering rent directly to the petitioner. As regards the personal need, it has come on record that another apartment fell vacant in the same building. The same ought to have been occupied otherwise personal need would not be treated as bona fide unless it comes on record that vacant premises is not suitable or insufficient for the need of the landlord which is not the case here. Findings on personal requirement need no interference.

5. In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. The respondent is given six months' time to vacant the premises and hand over its vacant possession to the petitioners. MWA/M-96/K Petition allowed.