Ejectment petition

Ejectment petition by the respondent (landlord/ being 'mutwalli of a trust') was filed on 30.1.2014, in which, the petitioner (tenant) made its first appearance in the court on 23.4.2014 and thereafter, filed leave to contest application on 03.5.2024

If the day of first appearance i.e. 23.4.2024 was included to compute the period of ten days, leave to contest application was time barred, however, if the said day was excluded, then the leave to contest application was within a period of ten days

Core legal question in the present matter was as to "whether the first day of appearance was to be excluded or not for computing the ten days limitation under S. 22(2) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (the "Act 2009")?"

Held: The petitioner under S. 22(2) of the Act 2009 was required to file leave to contest application within ten days of the first appearance

In view of S. 8 of the Punjab General Clauses Act 1956, the first day of appearance was to be excluded for computing the period of ten days

Application for leave to contest filed by the petitioner was within statutory period of ten days prescribed under S. 22(2) of the Act 2009, hence was not barred by time

Courts below wrongly held that application for leave to contest was not within the prescribed period of ten days, hence, to that extent the impugned order was not sustainable, however, on merits, no ground for leave to contest was made out

Ejectment petition was lawfully allowed against the petitioner

Constitutional petition being meritless was dismissed, in circumstances.

Though under S. 5(3) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (the "Act 2009"), the Rent Registrar shall enter the particulars of the tenancy in a register and also affix his official seal on the tenancy agreement, however, under S. 5(4) of the Act 2009, this entry will not absolve the landlord or tenant of the liability to register the tenancy agreement under the law relating to the registration of documents

The effect of the non- registration are applicable to all the rent deeds even after the promulgation of the Act, 2009.

Petitioner contended that lease was extended for period of 99 years by virtue of petitioner's offer which was acknowledged and responded to by the then Mutwalli

Validity

Even for the sake of argument if it was accepted that lease period was extended for period of 99 years, the said lease agreement being admittedly not a registered instrument as required under Ss. 17(d) & 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 read with S. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Transfer of Property Act), was deemed to be a lease from month to month basis terminable on part of lessor or lessee by 15 days' notice

Ejectment petition was lawfully allowed against the petitioner

Constitutional petition being meritless was dismissed, in circumstances.

'Mutwalli'was not only empowered to engage counsel for the conduct of cases for the Waqf property but he was also competent to lease the property of the Waqf

High Court emphasized that under S. 15 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009 (the "Act 2009"), the "landlord" may seek eviction of the tenant on various grounds mentioned therein

The term "landlord" was defined under S. 2(d) of the Act 2009 which meant owner of premises and included a person entitled or authorized to receive rent in respect of the premises

In the present case, notwithstanding the fact that property was vested in the Trust, the Mutwalli being authorized to lease out the property and also receiving rent fell within the definition of landlord and could file ejectment petition

Ejectment petition was maintainable and lawfully allowed against the petitioner

Constitutional petition being meritless was dismissed, in circumstances.

The brief facts were that the petitioner (purported landlord) filed a rent application under S.15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (the SRPO), claiming ownership demised premises, and alleging that respondent (purported tenant) was his tenant who defaulted in rent since 1994, seeking eviction and arrears

The respondents denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, contending that no written rent deed or proof of rent payment existed

Both the Rent Controller and Appellate Court dismissed the petitioner's claim, holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established, leading to the filing of present constitutional petition by the purported landlord

Held: It was clear from the evidence of parties that respondent (purported tenant) did not pay any rent to the petitioner (purported landlord) in respect of demised premises and petitioner remained silent for four years and did not take any effort to vacate the premises

The parties were already under litigation over title of demised premises and rent court thus could not determine the status of ownership of parties

Petitioner lodged claim of ownership of demised premises and landing the same on rent as owner

He was burdened to prove his claim through a solid and reliable evidence that he was landlord which he failed to discharge

Moreover, he claimed that demised premises was rented out on 01.09.1994, per his claim rent for one month only was paid to him but he remained silent until 27.08.1999 when the present rent application was filed

Pleadings of parties created a confusion regarding the ownership of demised premises which could not be settled by Rent Controller and fell within the jurisdiction of Civil Court

In the said circumstances, it was incumbent upon petitioner to agitate his claim of ownership before civil court but he did not

Contrary respondents filed suit seeking declaration of ownership of demised premises

Trial Court decreed the suit partly in favor of respondents and petitioner did not challenge the decree of Trial Court by way of appeal which attained finality against him

The courts below rightly resolved that title of the demised premises was under dispute and court of Rent Controller was not the forum for adjudication of such claim

It was obligatory upon the petitioner (purported landlord) to prove existence of relationship of landlord and tenant

The case of the petitioner fell outside the purview of provisions of SRPO 1979 thus rent application was not maintainable and concurrent findings of courts below were in accordance with law

Constitutional petition being devoid of merits was dismissed, in circumstances.

The issue in the present case centered on the legality of an eviction order passed against the petitioner (tenant) after a long-standing tenancy

The petitioner had entered into lease agreements with the original landlady, regularly paid rent without default, and even verbally extended tenancy beyond the written lease period

Later, Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 (new owners) claimed ownership of the premises after a transfer of title and filed an ejectment petition

The petitioner challenged the same, arguing that no mandatory notice of change of ownership under S.19 of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance 2001) was served; that the relationship of landlord and tenant with Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 (new owners) never legally existed, and that eviction was ordered without proper recording of evidence

The dispute thus revolved around "whether the eviction order was lawful in light of the alleged ownership transfer and absence of statutory notice"?

Held: Admittedly petitioner (tenant) originally entered the demised premises as tenant under the previous landlord

Upon the transfer of title, the private respondents (new landlord), being successors-in-interest, stepped into the shoes of the original landlord

Principle "once a tenant, always a tenant," was attracted in the present case and the mere transfer of ownership, did not alter the status of the tenancy nor created a fresh tenancy in favour of the new landlord

Furthermore, it had been the consistent view of the superior courts that a tenant was not entitled to challenge the title of the landlord unless and until he first surrendered possession of the tenanted premises

Moreover, petitioner's counsel gave an undertaking before the High Court that demises premises would be handed over to the new owners within four months which undertaking was not complied with

Undertaking recorded by the court carried the force of an order and breach thereof could entail penal consequences, including proceedings for contempt of court

With regards to the requirement of issuing statutory notice under S.19 of the Ordinance 2001, mere filing of the ejectment petition itself constituted sufficient notice to the tenant, therefore, there was no formal requirement to issue notice

Invocation of Art. 199 of the Constitution in the present case was wholly misconceived and not maintainable

Present petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Filing of an eviction petition itself constitutes sufficient notice to the tenant of the landlord's intention to terminate the tenancy

The institution of eviction proceedings, by necessary implication, serves as an express manifestation of the landlord's desire not to continue the tenancy any further.

Definition of 'undertaking' is of significant legal consequence as it aligns with the judicial interpretation that such a commitment made before a court is not a mere procedural formality but a binding assurance carrying the force of a court order

Once a party, through counsel, gives an unequivocal undertaking to the court such as to vacate rented premises within a specified period the undertaking transforms into an enforceable obligation

Any breach of such a solemn pledge not only offends the dignity of the court but also has coercive consequences.

Simultaneous execution of mortgage and tenancy agreement through a single document by the mortgagor without having any title over the premises in dispute in favour of the respondent, who let the mortgagor retain the possession subject to payment of rent

Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the petitioner

Courts below held the respondent entitled for payment of arrears of rent

Validity

Relationship between the respondent and mortgagor at the most was that of mortgagor and mortgagee and the same could hardly be considered as relationship between a landlord and tenant

Agreements i.e. one to mortgage the property and second to lease out the property were mentioned in one and the same document and an irresistible and vivid conclusion that could be drawn therefrom would be that lease deal was coined merely for the purpose of realizing the interest due on mortgage money, therefore, the amount agreed to be paid as rent could hardly be counted and considered as a rent payable by the tenant to the landlord

Amount that was shown to be received by the respondent was a certain sum of amount to be received for the consideration of amount that was lent to mortgagor, therefore, said amount could hardly be considered as rent amount to be paid by the mortgagor to the mortgagee for the simple reason that the mortgagor still was the owner of the property

A person cannot be the owner and the tenant at the same time

Simultaneous execution of mortgage and lease by the mortgagor was justifiably considered as mechanism/mode for the purposes of realizing due interest on the mortgage money and in such eventuality no relationship of landlord and tenant would come into existence as the lease deed in fact was a device to recover interest on loan

No amount was to be paid as rent more particularly when respondent was not landlord and neither mortgagor nor the petitioner (being legal heir of mortgagor) was tenant as per the provisions of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009

No relationship of landlord and tenant existed between respondent and the mortgagor, thus, lower courts had got no jurisdiction to either proceed in the matter or pass impugned order and judgments

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Eviction petition was instituted on 22.04.2021 and summons were issued to the petitioner (tenant) for appearance on 30.04.2021, however, despite receipt thereof by the petitioner's brother, the petitioner was (also) duly served through alternate mode by way of publication in the newspaper and its affixation

Despite of that the petitioner failed to appear before the Rent Controller

Before passing ex-parte order, proceedings were adjourned on five consecutive dates i.e. 07.05.2021, 25.05.2021, 03.06.2021, 09.06.2021 and 16.06.2021 but the petitioner failed to ensure his appearance

On 21.06.2021, ex-parte proceedings were initiated whereby the evidence produced by the respondent (landlady) was recorded

After recording of the evidence, the petitioner made an application before the Rent Controller for setting aside ex-parte proceedings, however, he was unable to justify why he failed to contest the rent case and how he got knowledge if the summons were not duly served upon him

Deliberate disappearance by the petitioner in the rent case, prima facie, spoke volumes about his intention to prolong/delay the rent proceedings

Thus, the Rent Controller was fully justified in allowing the ejectment petition and directing the petitioner to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

At the time of filing of ejectment petition on 22.04.2021 against the petitioner (tenant), the respondent was the 'landlady' within the meaning of section 2(g) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance), because a court of competent jurisdiction on 17.10.2020, had declared her and another lady to be the legal heirs of the deceased owner of the property

Whereas person "A" (paternal uncle of deceased owner) had also obtained judgment and decree dated 02.06.2021 in respect of legal heirship of deceased owner and allegedly entered into a sale agreement with the petitioner (tenant) solely and exclusively in respect of the demised premises on 04.12.2020

Thus the suit for the specific performance filed by the petitioner (tenant) against person "A" on 05.05.2021 was later in time than the rent case filed by the respondent (landlady)

Person cannot remain in occupation of rented premises simply because he asserts to be the owner of the rented premises and has instituted a suit for declaration in this regard

Tenant remains a tenant; he cannot prolong his occupation by exercising his right of being subsequent purchaser unless so held by the court of competent jurisdiction

In the present case the Rent Controller was fully justified in allowing the ejectment petition and directing the petitioner to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Petitioner/tenant assailed concurrent findings whereby the Special Judge (Rent) had assumed jurisdiction qua rented premises passing eviction order against him

Validity

Record showed that the landlord/ respondent in his ejectment petition had mentioned the location of the demised premises as other than the concerned cantonment, while in application for leave to contest filed by the petitioner/tenant, it was objected that said property fell within the administration of concerned cantonment

It was evident from the record that the rented premises was in the ownership of real brother of the respondent under a duly registered sale deed and the respondent had filed ejectment petition on behalf of his real brother and executed tenancy agreement with the petitioner

Perusal of said sale deed revealed that demised premises was located within the limits of a Cantonment Board

Section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, provides for eviction of tenant from the premises within the limits of cantonment area by applying to the Rent Controller for an order of eviction of a tenant but, in the present case, the Special Judge (Rent), had illegally assumed jurisdiction in the matter, though, he had no power to adjudicate upon the ejectment petition, hence the findings of Special Judge (Rent) were absolutely misconceived and based upon wrong assumption of law

Respondent/landlord sought eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises for which he could have filed petition in the court of the Rent Controller Cantonment Board under S.17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, who could have exercised jurisdiction under the law

Thus, adjudication, of the ejectment petition filed by respondent, by the Special Judge (Rent), and Additional District Judge/Appellate Court was without jurisdiction which had no legal effect whatsoever

High Court set-aside the impugned orders and judgments passed by both the courts below being without jurisdiction and any lawful authority

Constitutional petition filed by the tenant was allowed accordingly.

Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition, seeking eviction of the appellant from the rented premises (shop owned by the Trust), filed by the respondents(Anjuman/community managing the affairs of the Trust)

Stance of the appellant /tenant was that respondents were incorrectly claiming themselves to be landlords of the rented premises and he was tenant of the Trust

Validity

Said stance of the appellant/tenant was not correct as respondents produced three witnesses out of whom one was the representative of the Trust who stated in cross-examination that for the last ten years or so all affairs, including tenancy of the Trust had been entrusted under the management of the respondents

From said statement , it was clear that all affairs of the Trust were entrusted to the respondent/Anjuman for management; said statement had not been suggested to be incorrect nor the appellant, having adduced his evidence later, bothered to display in his evidence any documentary record to controvert or to falsify said part of statement of said witness

As such , in light of said mute conduct of the appellant, there rested no room for any presumption other than to believe said statement of the witness, as such relationship of landlord and tenant stood sufficiently established between the parties and that respondents were landlords

Moreover, the appellant had himself admitted in course of cross-examination that he had not paid the rent of the rented premises after the year 2012 and he had absolutely been unable to put forth any justification with regard to said omission

So, default on the part of the appellant also stood proved beyond any doubt

No illegality or infirmity or material irregularity had been noticed in the impugned order passed by the Rent Controlle

Appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed, in circumstances.

If landlord canvasses multiple grounds for the eviction of the tenant it is not necessary for him to establish and prove all those grounds

If the landlord is able to prove one of the grounds asserted in the ejectment petition, the tenant can be evicted by the Rent Controller.

No document was available to show that tenant was directed either to handover possession of the house to alleged purchaser or that the tenancy was invoked

Merely on basis of agreement to sell, the respondents/tenants could not presume revocation of tenancy

Admittedly, the respondent was not in occupation of the premises in pursuance to said agreement to sell but by virtue of rent deed

No claim by respondent/ tenant that after agreement to sell alleged purchaser handed over the possession to him as of a tenant or otherwise

Alleged agreement to sell was not between the landlord and tenant but it was between petitioner (landlord) and son of the tenant, hence, S.10 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, would not apply

Neither alleged purchaser's suit for specific performance had been decreed nor property had been transferred in his name through any registered document

Constitutional petition was allowed and eviction order was restored.

Contention of petitioner was that suit property was situated in joint khewat and no specific boundary or number of property was mentioned in the ejectment petition, therefore, the same could not be indentified without demarcation and that the Executing Court had gone beyond the decree by passing the order regarding removal of structure and machinery installed on the property in question

Validity

Petitioner had to return possession of the property which was given to him on rent and it was not relevant whether property was part of joint khata or not

No controversy was left which had to be resolved by the Executing Court

Courts below had rightly dismissed the application

Writ petition was dismissed.

Tenant/company objected that the copy of the Resolution submitted by the respondent/Trust, entitling eviction petitioner to plead eviction, did not bear the date of issuance of the said document

Ejectment petition was concurrently allowed

Held, that if the objection of petitioner/tenant was deemed to be of any significance, then possibly the constitutional petition filed by the petitioner could be dismissed for the same reason as resolution passed in favour of the petitioner, annexed with constitutional petition, also did not bear date of its issuance

Matter of indoor management (of company) could not be raised by the third party

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned orders and judgments passed by both the Courts below ,allowing the ejectment petition filed by the respondent/landlord

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Ejectment petition filed by respondent/landlord on grounds of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide need was allowed and Rent Controller directed the petitioner/tenant to vacate the property

Petitioner's appeal was dismissed by District Court

Petitioner contended that decisions of Courts below were against the oral/documentary evidence and record; that petitioner had been depositing the rent of rented shop since 1991; that respondent was not physically/mentally fit to perform business of gold ornaments; that out of total 3 shops on ground floor of the building, petitioner was tenant of shop situated in the center of shops and respondent was in possession of shop which was locked for over more than 12 years while respondent got the another shop vacated in another parallel proceeding from its tenant which was larger in size and having two corner-shutters same was of more attractive location for business of gold ornaments

Respondent contended that petitioner had failed to establish mala fide on part of landlord

Held, that petitioner admitted during his cross-examination that he had not paid the rent from May 1997 to December 1999 and further said that he had deposited the rent in Court

Petitioner failed to produce any receipt of rent or any other proof depicting the deposit of rent for said disputed period

Respondent averred that he was undertaking jewelry business in one shop which could not cater his business need being too small

Another Shop (subject matter of present case) was situated between two shops, therefore, one shop could not serve the purpose of extension/expansion of business

Respondent was quite consistent with his assertion of personal need which could not be rebutted

Revision petition was dismissed and petitioner was required to hand over physical possession of the said shop to respondent within 4 months.

Landlord, during pendency of eviction petition, moved application for enhancement of rent which was accepted and tenant was directed to deposit tentative rent

Validity

Relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties

Matter with regard to ejectment of tenant was subjudice before the Rent Controller

Appeal had been filed against interim order passed by the Rent Controller

Amount deposited under impugned order was subject to adjustment at the time of final disposal of the matter between the parties

Impugned order was neither a final order nor matter had been finally disposed of

Rent Controller had discretionary power to hold inquiry and he was not bound to follow the procedure stipulated in Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Rent Controller had not violated any law

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Case of landlord was that he wanted the possession of rented premises for extention in his business and alternation in its structure

Validity

Attorney of landlord had recorded his statement that the rented premises was required for enhancement of business

Landlord was entitled to choose or pick any one of his properties for his personal use and suitability of the property could not be determined by the tenant

Contention of tenant that landlord himself had not appeared before the Rent Controller for recording of his statement had no force because the law did not prohibit for appointing any attorney for recording the statement on oath before the court

Mere non-appearance of the landlord had not effected his bona fide claim

Attorney was the son of landlord and his statement was straightforward confidence inspiring and was not shaken during cross-examination

Sole testimony of the landlord was sufficient to prove personal bona fide need

Rent Controller, after proper appraisal of material available on record had came to the right conclusion

Appeal, being devoid of merits, was dismissed.

Tenant filed application for summary rejection of eviction petition on the ground that co-owner had compromised with him

Rent Controller dismissed the said application

Validity

If co-owner of demised premises had filed separate application for enhancement of rent and same had been decided on merit or under S.89-A of C.P.C. then it did not create a bar in the way of seeking ejectment of tenant nor same rendered the ejectment petition not maintainable

Even one of co-sharers could file an application for ejectment of tenant

Interim order of Rent Controller could not be assailed under constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Even one of the legal heirs of the deceased landlord can file ejectment petition.

Contention that period of default in payment of rent was not mentioned in the ejectment application, therefore, tenant was not a "defaulter"

Validity

Admittedly tenant used to pay rent through cheque, which was deposited in landlady's Bank account

Statement of Bank account was annexed by the landlady which showed default of 8 months

Default of tenant was established in view of Bank statement.

Contention that landlady did not require the demised premises in good faith but wanted to sell as such purpose did not amount to bona fide need

Validity

Point of selling the premises by landlady was not taken by tenant before two forums below

No such intention was mentioned by landlady in her affidavit in evidence, wherein she had taken plea that she needed the premises to house her daughter

Landlady was not cross-examined on that point; tenant could not take refuge from something mentioned in the pleadings

Landlady was a retired ailing old lady as such her intention that she needed her daughter to be settled in demised premises, appeared to be coherent and reasonable

Owner could sell her/his property at any moment even without getting the same vacated

No doubt under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, rented premises could not be vacated solely on ground of selling the same but it was nowhere mentioned in the said Ordinance that after getting the premises vacated owner could not sell the same

Landlady had established her personal need

Findings of two courts below did not require any interference.

Where landlord was willing to get vacated rented premises without good faith, application of landlord would not be allowed on ground of personal need

If the Rent Tribunal had mentioned in his findings "good faith" of "personal need" of landlord; word "bona fide" was not necessary to be mentioned as said word was synonyms with "good faith".

Lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate that it was a statutory tenancy and as such rights and liabilities of both the parties were to be governed by Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Term 'rent' under section 2(i) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 included "water charges", "electricity" charges and "such other charges that were payable by tenant" but were unpaid

Landlords never pleaded or claimed that tenants were liable to pay electricity charges directly to them instead of paying same to the electric company

Tenants committed default in payment of electricity charges and because of their default, electricity supply of demised premises was disconnected

Lower Appellate Court wrongly held that landlords failed in proving that tenants had committed willful default in payment of electricity charges as electricity meter was not in name of landlords and demised premises was handed over to tenants without electricity

High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, directed tenants to vacate demised premises and to handover vacant and peaceful possession to landlords and set aside judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Rent Controller directed the tenant to file written statement, who requested the Court to first dispose of his application for summary rejection of ejectment petition wherein he had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant

Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition and ordered ejectment of tenant

Validity

Rent Controller while passing order under S. 17(8), Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 could not act mechanically but had to consider both, the plea of landlord as well as the defence offered by the tenant

Rent Controller, in the present case, had, without waiting for the written reply of tenant, passed order under S. 17(8) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963; without giving any opportunity to the tenant to explain his cause qua putting forward his defence

When tenant had denied relationship of landlord and tenant, Rent Controller was to frame preliminary issue on the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, however, in case landlord established the relationship in affirmative to the satisfaction of the Rent Controller then the same shall follow ejectment order against the tenant

Before striking off the defence of tenant no notice was issued to tenant which was a mandatory requirement before passing an order in that regard

Case was remanded to the Rent Controller with direction to frame preliminary issue regarding existence of relationship between the parties

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioners/tenants contended that the demised property was Shamlat-e-Deh and they were in its occupation since the year 1960

Respondent/ landlord contended that he, along with other legal heirs, had a valid title over the demised premises

Validity

Petitioners had failed to establish their claim, regarding Shamlat-e-Deh, through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence

Petitioners, admittedly, filed independent suit for declaration which was dismissed for non-production of evidence

Respondent, on the contrary, in order to establish his claim over the demised premises, produced Fards Jamabandys, Form PT-10 and receipts of payment of property tax and there was nothing on record in the rebuttal

Petitioners, merely on the basis of electricity and sui gas bills etc., could not legitimize their possession over the demised premises as owners because a tenant could also get installed such connections in his name

Record revealed that presently respondent, along with others, had a valid title of the demised premises and in absence of anything contrary to the same, petitioners' possession over the property would be presumed as of a tenant

Appellate Court after due appreciation of the evidence available on record had rightly arrived at a conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Where the lease agreement was beyond a period of one (1) year, under the provisions of S. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, read with S. 17(d) of the Registration Act, 1908, such lease agreement was compulsorily registerable

Lease of immovable property from year to year or for a term exceeding one year or reserving yearly rent could only be made through a registered instrument

Since the lease agreement for ten years, in the present case , was unregistered, the tenure of the lease agreement was only binding between the parties for the initial eleven (11) months, where after the relationship between the parties was to be regulated by the terms of the statute in question, i.e. the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963

Tenancy between the parties shall, therefore, be considered to be a statutory tenancy on a month to month basis beyond the initial period of eleven (11) months.

Admittedly, the appellant was unable to bring on record any evidence, oral or documentary, regarding the payment of rent to the landlord after a specific date

In such circumstances tenant was rightly held to be a "willful defaulter"

Furthermore as per the lease agreement the tenant took the property on rent for residential purposes, but he had converted the property to commercial use, thus he violated the terms of the lease agreement

Court below had rightly allowed the ejectment petition of the landlord and ordered the tenant to vacate the premises

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Question of jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal could be raised at any stage of the proceedings before the Rent Tribunal.

In order to be able to produce additional evidence whether oral or documentary at the appeal stage a party was required to establish that the Court against whose decree/order the appeal had been filed refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted

Moreover, the appellate Court while exercising its power to allow additional evidence did not normally favour a delinquent litigant

Such power was only exercised in genuine cases

In the present case, the documents that the tenant/appellant was trying to produce at the appellate stage were in its possession and power at the time of the trial of the ejectment petition and the appellant was fully aware of their existence

Explanation that the documents were not adduced in evidence during trial due to mistaken legal advice was, therefore, not tenable

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Lease of immovable property from year to year or for a term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent could only be made through a registered instrument, as mandated by S.107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and S.17(d) of the Registration Act, 1908

In case a lease agreement was so required to be registered but not registered with the Registrar of documents then the lease agreement was bad in law

Consequently, the relationship between such a landlord and the tenant beyond the initial period of eleven (11) months was to be regulated by the provisions of the statute in question i.e. the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963

Such a tenant became a statutory tenant and the tenancy continued on a month to month basis

In the present case, the lease agreement was for a period of ten years, however it was not registered

Admittedly, the initial eleven (11) months of the tenancy had already lapsed

Tenant was, therefore, a statutory tenant thereafter and the tenancy was to continue on a month to month basis

Plea of tenant that the lease agreement was for a period of 10-years and was not terminable prior to the lapse of the stipulated 7-years was not sustainable and was accordingly repelled

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners/tenants contended that Rent Tribunal had rightly dismissed ejectment petition of the respondent/landlady as she produced a forged tenancy agreement

Landlady contended that Appellate Court had rightly set aside the order of Rent Tribunal as petitioners retained original tenancy agreement, so she produced a copy of said agreement

Validity

Tenant could not question the title of landlady and he only had to prove that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties did not exist

Even a person entitled to receive rent fell within the definition of landlord

Petitioners had to prove that they had not entered into any tenancy agreement with the landlady

Findings of Rent Tribunal regarding non-existence of any tenancy agreement between the parties was based on the statement made, during cross-examination, by one of the witnesses of the landlady that no agreement was executed between the parties in his presence

Rent Tribunal had misread said evidence as she never took stance that said witness was present at the time of execution of the tenancy agreement between the parties

Landlady had mentioned in the petition that the tenancy agreement was signed by two marginal witnesses with assertion that one stood witness from respondents' side whereas the other, who was admittedly brother-in-law of one of the petitioners was from the tenant's side

Petitioners had failed to produce the said marginal witness to controvert the claim of the landlady

Son of the deceased stamp vendor, scribe of the tenancy agreement, had identified the writing and signature of his father on tenancy agreement, who also denied the suggestion that the said document was forged one

Original tenancy agreement had not been produced by any of the parties and only a copy of said document had been placed on record, however, execution of the said document had been fully proved by the landlady by production of oral evidence

Even from statement of one of the petitioners, it was evident that tenancy agreement was executed between the parties

Judgment of Appellate Court would be given preference in case of conflict between Trial Court and Appellate Court

No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Appeal was dismissed.

Default had been proved by the conduct of tenant when he chose to deposit rent in the office of Rent Controller instead of first tendering it to the landlord

No documentary proof with regard to sale transaction between landlord and tenant was available

Tenant was directed by the High Court to vacate the rented premises

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner/tenant was aggrieved of Rent Controller's order whereby it struck off his defence and dismissed two applications for review

Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, being barred by time

Plea of petitioner was that limitation did not run against void ab initio orders

Validity

Rent Controller had no power to review his order

Rent Controller had rightly passed a judicial order on the application under S. 16(2), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 since it was within its power to pass such order

Petitioner, had not taken the plea, before the appellate court, that limitation was not applicable as order was void ab initio

Only ground raised before the Appellate Court was that petitioner was out of city, hence the delay, such was not a sufficient ground

Use of word "shall" in S.3 of Limitation Act, 1908 made it mandatory for the court to dismiss the appeal which was filed after lapse of prescribed period of limitation

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioner/tenant contended that he did not receive notice and as he had denied the said fact on oath, the burden of proof had shifted to the landlords

Respondents/landlords contended that sending of notice to the tenant through courier and Registered Post was sufficient proof of the same

Validity

Address, in the present case, was stated to be correct and the registered post acknowledgement was also available on record

Respondents/Landlords appeared to have discharged their burden when an acknowledgement receipt was produced to establish that notice under S. 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was sent and served which presumption was governed by Art. 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Denial on oath could only shift the burden upon landlord if tenant/addressee had himself appeared before the Court whereas, in the present case, attorney of the tenant appeared to adduce evidence

Negative oral evidence could lean for presumption of truth under S.27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 and Art. 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Best evidence was withheld by petitioner/tenant

Where a fact was required to be proved through oral evidence , such evidence must be direct and of primary source within the meaning of Art. 71 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 which provided instances of direct oral evidence regarding proof of fact

Landlords could not be deprived of their legitimate right once the notices had been served upon the tenant

If the Rent Controller was required to extract the intention of a wilful or non-wilful default it would end up every case as non-wilful default as every tenant would have some legitimate reasons/excuses like financial crises or payment of rent to the previous owner etc.

At times technical default was being considered by the Court but that was limited to the extent that the same was being deposited in the name of same landlord which depended upon the nature, circumstance and controversy of each case

No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the judgments and the decrees passed by the two Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Landlord filed ejectment petition claiming that rented premises was required for use and occupation of his son as he was jobless

Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition

Appellate Court allowed the appeal and directed the tenant to vacate the rented premises

Validity

Landlord was required to produce either oral or documentary evidence to substantiate his claim

Landlord failed to prove his claim/plea taken in the ejectment petition and had simply recorded his own statement before Rent Controller, hence his case was without evidence

Onus to prove his personal bona fide need was on the landlord

Landlord had to prove his case on its own strength by producing cogent evidence and had no right to claim that his suit might be decreed on the weakness of opposite party in the suit

Landlord had, in addition to the disputed shop, two other shops adjacent to it and another shop had already been vacated by the tenant during pendency of litigation

Landlord could establish business of his son in the aforesaid vacated shop

Judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court was set aside and that of Rent Controller was restored

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

If opportunity of cross-examination was declined to the party, such evidence as a general rule was not legally admissible

Contesting parties must undergo test of cross-examination for ascertaining truth or otherwise of their claims failing which adverse assumption could be drawn against them under Art. 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Maxim " audi alterm partem" would be applicable to the case of the tenant in circumstances

High Court remanded the matter with direction to provide full opportunity to the parties to produce their respective evidence

First appeal was partially allowed.

Landlord contended that first appellate court had rightly passed ejectment order on the basis of wilful default by the tenants

Validity

Record revealed that tenants had not deposited the rent in court which was essential pre-requisite

Even if tenants had not accepted the new owner as landlord they were legally bound to deposit rent in the court which they had not done deliberately

Despite the fact that tenants claimed the monthly rent to be Rs. 100/- per month in current high rise period of inflation the same had not been deposited in the court

Tenants had simply relied on the receipt of money order sent to the previous owner but the same did not absolve their liability to deposit rent in the court after institution of ejectment proceedings

Copy of notice sent to the tenants was exhibited by the landlord with the ejectment petition which negated the contention of tenants regarding non-issuance of notice by the new owner

No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned order passed by first appellate court

Second appeal of tenants was dismissed accordingly.

Constitutional jurisdiction was exercised with great care and caution in matters relating to tenancy/ejectment of tenant as the same could not be used as a substitute for an appeal

Evidence duly appreciated by the courts below could not be re-appraised on the ground that some other view was possible in constitutional jurisdiction

Appraisal of evidence was the function of courts below and if the findings were based on proper appraisal of evidence, the same could not be interfered with lightly in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction

Party approaching the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution had to demonstrate that there was some gross misreading or non-reading of evidence or any jurisdictional defect floating on the surface of record.

Tenant contended that Rent Tribunal had wrongly rejected his application to leave to contest as the dispute between the parties demanded recording of evidence

Landlord contended that after expiry of tenancy agreement tenant was liable to be evicted and Appellate Court had wrongly accepted appeal of the tenant

Validity

According to the contents of ejectment petition tenancy between the parties was oral in nature starting from the year 2001 whereas tenant contested the matter on the ground that initially the premises were hired on rent by his father on the basis of lease agreement in 1984 and after the death of his father he had been put up in the premises as a tenent

Tenant produced an agreement in support of his contention during the proceedings at Appellate Court

Inconsistent pleas on the part of the landlord on different occasions fully justified acceptance of application filed by the tenant seeking leave to contest

Legality of agreement regarding lease in perpetuity against Pagri of Rs. 1,50,000/- would be adjudged by the Rent Tribunal after recording of evidence of the parties and in case landlord succeeded that the same was not properly executed document he would be entitled for decision in his favour regarding eviction of the tenant

Landlord on the one hand denied lease between the parties but also offered for repayment of amount of Pagri subject to the condition of eviction from the premises by the tenant

High Court observed that it was not feasible to determine said question without recording of evidence of the parties and directed the Rent Tribunal to decide the ejectment petition after recording the evidence of the parties

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Tenant, during the subsistence of tenancy, had no right to challenge the title of landlord.

Landlord may not be essentially an owner of the property and ownership may not always be a determining factor to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; however, in normal circumstances in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the owner of the property by virtue of his title is presumed to be the landlord and the person in possession of premises is considered tenant.

Object of the law was to compel the parties to enter into a tenancy agreement within the view and scope of the provisions of Ss.5, 6 & 7 of the Act (read together)

Penalty had been provided by the law for the breach of the obligations, envisaged thereby, in that, where the tenancy agreement was not so entered and a landlord or the tenant approached the Rent Tribunal for the enforcement of his right(s) under the Act, he had to pay a fine, the non-registration of the rent agreement

Oral tenancy was an irregularity that entailed penal consequences

Ejectment petition could be entertained subject to payment of fine as enshrined in S. 9 of the Act.

When a factual controversy had been settled between the parties through an agreement outside the court and the same had been given effect by an order of the court of competent jurisdiction, then the same could not be resiled subsequently and the parties were under a legal obligation to abide by the terms and conditions thereof.

Rent Tribunal partially allowed leave to defend by ordering vacation of demised property and called for evidence on rate of monthly rent and security amount

Appellate Court remanded the matter

Landlord contended that Appellate Court had wrongly remanded the case as tenant had committed wilful default in payment of monthly rent

Tenant contended that he could not be declared defaulter as his security amount could be adjusted in rent due

Validity

Rent Tribunal could adopt the procedure of deciding the matter on the basis of facts established on the record and there was no need of recording of evidence for determination of a fact established on the record

Under S.7(1) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 the tenant was obliged to make payment of rent to the landlord in the mode and by the date mentioned in the rent agreement

Rent agreement did not provide that the due rent was to be adjusted from the security amount

Landlord was to refund the security amount at the time of vacation of premises by the tenant, therefore, availability of security amount with the landlord could not absolve the tenant to pay rent within time

Tenant had failed to show payment of rent to the landlord in accordance with the terms of agreement as per S.7 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009

Impugned order passed by Appellate Court being not sustainable in the eye of law, was set-aside and High Court restored the order passed by the Rent Tribunal

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner / tenant / sub-lessee contended that as respondent/company was the lessee which rented the premises/property of Port Trust, the proceedings could not be initiated before the Rent Controller and notification issued in such regard had exempted such properties

Respondent/lessee contended that such plea was not taken by the petitioner before the Courts below

Validity

Although question of law so brought, in the present case, was neither taken before the Rent Controller, nor raised before the Appellate Court yet the same could be adjudicated as question of waiver, estoppel or limitation was not attracted

Lessee was not competent to file case against sub-lessee

Object of law behind the enactment of S.3 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 that of Notification issued thereunder was to exclude properties owned by or belonging to the Federal Government or the Provincial Government from the operation of provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

In the present case, there was, admittedly, no dispute with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties

Exemption as provided under S. 3 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 could be extended to "premises", "building" or "rented land" as defined under S.2(h) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and such exemption or non-exemption was to be determined on the basis of status of the immoveable property

Record showed that in the year 1962, through tenancy agreement, petitioner sub-leased/rented the plot/ property originally leased to the respondent by the Port Trust but subsequently, by consent, the petitioner shifted to another property

Intent behind issuance of the notification was to safeguard the interests of the Port Trust and not to restrict or interfere the litigation between two private parties

Premises in question did not fall within the purview of the exemption

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Landlady contended that she needed demised property for personal bona fide need in the wake of forthcoming marriage of his son

Tenant contended that landlady had falsely changed the ground of default of payment to personal bona fide need as current accommodation with her was sufficient

Validity

Record revealed that in the ejectment application, the landlady had asserted that marriage of her son (who was also a witness in the case) had been fixed as such she needed the demised premises for use of her son and she affirmed that she had purchased the premises in question as her son's marital house and this fact was conveyed to the tenant at the time of rent agreement

Evidence of attorney of the landlady and her other witnesses including her son had reiterated the same and also that the marriage had been put on hold for vacation of the demised premises as the girl's family had demanded a separate house for their daughter as a precondition for the marriage

All the witnesses of the appellant had unequivocally supported personal need of landlady for her son whom she intended to settle there after the marriage and which was also the demand of her would-be daughter-in-law's family

Such assertions of the witnesses had neither been shattered materially in their cross-examination nor rebutted adequately by the tenant in his reply to the ejectment application

High Court observed that it was not essentially the case of the landlady that her current accommodation was insufficient for her family's residence as her entire case was articulated of her ejectment application where she had asserted that her son's marriage had been fixed, therefore, she needed the demised premises for his use; and that she had purchased the suit property as her son's marital house, where he was to settle after the marriage and such fact was conveyed to the tenant at the time of rent agreement

Landlady, in circumstances, had been able to establish that she required the demised premises for his son

Impugned order was set aside and appeal was allowed

Tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises and hand over its possession to the landlady within 60 days from the date of present judgment for which period he however, shall pay the agreed rent to the landlady

Order accordingly.