Ejectment application

For eviction of appellant (tenant) on the grounds of default in payment of rent and expiry of lease a petition under S.17 of the Act, 1963, was moved by the respondent (landlord) claiming that appellant was a tenant in the rented premises who had committed default in payment of rent

After filing of reply to the application the Rent Controller vide order dated 02.11.2023 directed deposit of arrears of rent as well as future monthly rent pending decision of the ejectment petition

Later, on 29.11.2023, the respondent filed an application under subsection (9) of S.17 of the Act asserting that the order for deposit of rent was not complied with and that in view of willful default the appellant was liable to forthwith eviction from the rented premises

Despite opportunities the appellant did not file his reply which right was closed and after hearing both sides the Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 07.12.2023, struck off appellant's right of defence and he was directed to vacate the premises and also pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 93,885/- per month with 10% annual increase

Validity

Perusal of record revealed that there was no compliance of order dated 02.11.2023 in respect of month of June, 2023, and non-deposit of rent for December 2023 therefore, the Rent Controller had no other option except to direct straightaway ejectment of the applicant in terms of S.17(9) of the Act

According to subsection (9) of S.17 of the Act, if the tenant fails to deposit the amount of rent before specified date or as the case may be before 5th of the month, his defence shall be struck off

On bare perusal of said provisions, it is manifested that the said provisions are mandatory in nature and even one day's delay in making the deposit would be default within its meaning and Rent Controller has no power to extend time and condone the same

In the instant case, there was no explanation for late deposit of rent for the month of June, 2023 or non-deposit of rent for the month of December, 2023

So much so, no reply to the application for striking off defence was filed by the applicant to explain the late deposit of rent for the month of December 2023

Thus, the order of Rent Controller was fair and just

Appeal being devoid of any merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondent (landlord) filed an ejectment application seeking eviction of appellant (tenant) on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide need

Initially, the appellant had entered into a written tenancy agreement with the respondent dated 15.05.2018 and upon its expiry, a new alleged agreement was executed between the respondent (landlord) and the appellant's (tenant's) wife, effective from 10.03.2020 to 10.05.2025

The appellant (tenant's), in defense, claimed he was no longer a tenant and had been wrongly impleaded, as the tenancy had been transferred to his wife

During proceedings before the Additional Rent Controller, a tentative rent order was passed on 22.09.2023

The respondent later filed an application under S. 17(9) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (the "Act, 1963"), alleging non-compliance with the tentative rent order by the appellant

The Additional Rent Controller accepted this application, struck off the appellant's defense, and ordered him to vacate the premises within 30 days vide order dated 11.12.2023

The appellant challenged this eviction in the present appeal, arguing that the tenancy relationship no longer existed between him and the respondent, thus precluding the Additional Rent Controller from passing any order against him

The proposition placed for determination before the High Court was that "where an individual remained in possession of the rented premises and continued to tender rent payments, notwithstanding the expiration of the original tenancy agreement executed in his name and the subsequent execution of a fresh tenancy agreement in favour of his spouse, did such continued occupation and conduct sustain his status as a tenant within the contemplation of section 2(j) of the Act, 1963, and did his failure to comply with a tentative rent order lawfully warranted the striking off of his defence"

Held: As per the definition provided in S. 2(j) of the Act, 1963 a tenant can be a person, who undertakes or is bound to pay rent as consideration for the possession or occupation of a building by him or by any other person on his behalf and it includes any person, who continues to be in possession or occupation of the building after termination of his tenancy and in the event of death of the tenant, his heirs and successors and after termination of the tenancy, his heirs and successors who continue to be in possession or occupation of the building

In the instant case, though a fresh tenancy agreement was executed between the respondent and wife of the appellant but the record revealed that the appellant kept depositing the monthly rent of the rented premises to the respondent even after the execution of fresh tenancy agreement

The appellant was thus a tenant for all intents and purposes

The appellant failed to point out any material irregularity justifying interference with the impugned order

The appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Tenant alleged that he entered into a sale agreement with previous owner of disputed premises and asserted payment of consideration and possession

There was pending suit for specific performance between the tenant and previous owner

Subsequent owner after issuance of notice qua change of ownership filed an application under S.17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (Act), which was allowed by the Additional Controller of Rents

Contention of the tenant was that the Additional Controller of Rents had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the rent matter

Validity

Section 6 of the Act had laid down a scheme, whereby, the Controller of Rents is appointed by a notification in Official Gazette for one or more cantonments

Appellant had not disputed that the Additional Controller of Rents had been appointed through notification as stipulated in law, thus, the plea of appellant was a repelled

Ground on which the application under S.17 of the Act was filed by the respondent was related to his personal bona fide need and not default in payment of rent

Subsequent landlord/respondent in the application as well as affidavit in evidence had categorically stated that he had purchased the demised premises for his personal bona fide use, which assertion had not been controverted by the tenant in cross-examination of respondent

Instead, respondent had been asked questions regarding the suit filed by the tenant against the previous owner

Nothing rebutting the ground of personal bona fide use of respondent, had been propounded by the tenant through any oral or documentary evidence, thus, the case of respondent on the ground of personal bona fide stoodproved

As regards the case of appellant that he had purchased the property from previous owner, if the tenant succeeded in his suit for specific performance, he would succeed in acquiring possession of the property

Attorney of the tenant had admitted possession of the demised premises in the capacity of tenant and depositing the rent in the court,thus, no further proof in presence of such admission was needed to show the nature of relation of the landlord and tenant

First Rent Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application of the landlord/appellant on the ground that he was seeking eviction of shop (demised property) for his son and not for his own use

Held, that in case of residential building, the landlord could move the ejectment petition if he required the same in good faith for his own use or for the use of any member of his family (subject to fulfillment of other conditions as well), but if the demised property was commercial then landlord could move the ejectment application only for his own use

Statement of the appellant/landlord adduced in the evidence showed his intention to get the shop evicted for his son/children and not for his own personal need

Section 17(4)(b) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, did not recognize the need of the children of the landlord as a valid ground for eviction of tenant

Record also showed that landlord owned others/multiple commercial buildings also, few of which were lying vacated

Additional Rent Controller had rightly dismissed ejectment application of the landlord

Appeal of the landlord was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner/landlord contended that Appellate Court had wrongly set aside eviction order passed by the Rent Controller as tenant failed to prove his entitlement regarding rented premises

Tenant contended that he was in possession of the premises being shareholder/owner and in such regard civil suit was pending between the parties

Validity

Record revealed that tenant could not produce any document before the two courts below regarding his claim over the premises-Tenant, however, admitted that he was in possession of a portion of the premises since long but he could not substantiate his right of possession and he had no title document in his favour

Such occupant, by law would be considered as "tenant"

Non-disposal of the application under O. XLI R. 27, C.P.C. by the Appellate Court would not make any difference as giving permission for additional evidence was discretion of the Court and non-disposal of such application transpired that Appellate Court had not used its discretion in favour of the tenant

Fact that tenant had initiated civil proceedings by filing suit to establish his right would make no difference, for as long as the tenant had not succeeded in establishing his right before the competent court , his status would remain as "tenant"

If tenant succeeded in getting any relief from the competent civil court, he could seek possession of the property in question under the decree so obtained, therefor, mere pendency of civil suit was not a ground for refusal of the ejectment of tenant

High court set aside the impugned order passed by Appellate Court

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Appellants /tenants contended that Rent Controller had wrongly passed eviction order against them as they had dispute over increase in monthly rent of rented premises

Landlords contended that tenants had never resorted in any way to pay them rent since long and their appeals were also time-barred

Validity

Tenants, in the present case, had violated the provisions of law by not paying the rent to the landlords since September 2016 till filing of ejectment petition by landlords, and did not file any application before Rent Controller for depositing the rent, or brought the dispute of increase of rent before Rent Controller for deciding the same

Even otherwise, the tenancy agreement had expired in June 2016 and no fresh agreement was executed between the parties, therefore, tenants were liable to be evicted from the respective properties after the expiry of tenancy agreement

Appeal was maintainable only if the same be filed under S.24 of Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 within thirty days of the impugned order but appeal, in the present case, had been filed after expiry of 3 days allowed by S.24 of the Act with an application for condonation of delay under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908

Since the time for filing appeal was provided in the special law i.e Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, and was not prescribed by Limitation Act, 1908, S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 had no applicability to the matter

High Court maintained impugned eviction order passed by Rent Controller

Appeals were dismissed accordingly.

Petitioners/ tenants contended that landlords were continually evicting the tenants of subject property at their will and whim and ground floor alone of multi-storeyed subject premises was sufficient to run their small scale industry

Landlords/ company contended that as ground floor had no frontage so whole subject building was needed for viable functioning of their company

Validity

Admittedly, subject property was commercial premises so bona fide need of the landlords for such property was to be seen on the touchstone of test different from that of residential rented premises

Record revealed that landlords in the evidence of one ejectment proceedings stated that their initially occupied ground floor had no frontage but in the cross-examination of proceedings of other ejectment petition, main gate as entrance on the rear side of ground floor was admitted

When the prerogative of landlords was left to their desire when the ground floor was acquired, in order to acquire more space some confidence inspiring evidence was required

Prerogative, choice and whims could not be the only tool left to judge the bona fides of the landlords at later attempts when they failed to explain insufficiency of earlier portion

Landlords made no attempt to show any progress of their company which was hampered due to mere insufficiency of space

Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company/landlords was silent as to running of factory as its object

High Court observed that there were no aims and objects of the company enabling the landlords to evict tenants for the purpose of establishing industrial unit " for its own"

Bona fides, in circumstances, became missing ingredient to evict tenants on the ground of personal requirement

High Court set aside impugned judgments passed by the two Courts below, resultantly the ejectment applications were dismissed

Constitutional petitions were allowed accordingly.

Landlady and tenant entered into an 'agreement to sell' and a 'tenancy agreement' at the same time with regards to rented premises

Under the terms of the agreement to sell a sum was deposited by the tenant in the landlady's account as advance while the balance sale consideration was to be paid by a specific date

Under the tenancy agreement the tenant was inducted in the rented premises as tenant for a period of six months

Subsequently tenant stopped paying rent and also failed to pay the balance sale consideration to get the conveyance deed registered, but retained the possession of the rented premises

Rent Controller directed the tenant to tentatively deposit future rent and also to deposit the arrears of rent

Upon failure to comply with such direction, the landlady filed an application under S. 17(9) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 for striking off defence of the tenant

Said application was allowed by the Rent Controller and the tenant was, directed to vacate the rented premises and hand over its possession to the landlady

Validity

Possession of rented premise was handed over to the tenant under a written tenancy agreement for a period of six months and tenant also paid advance rent

Mere expiry of six months tenancy period, in such circumstances, had not ipso facto terminated the relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties, as even after the expiry of such period, tenant's status as regards possession of rented premises remained that of the tenant

As long as the agreement to sell was not specifically performed between the parties or enforced through court proceedings, tenant's status as regards possession of the rented premises remained that of a tenant

Such legal position also found support from the terms of the agreement to sell

Rent Controller was, thus, fully justified in ordering striking off defence of the tenant under S. 17(9) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, due to admitted non-compliance

Further a civil suit for specific performance of agreement to sell separately filed by the tenant was pending, wherein tenant was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration amount in terms of the agreement to sell, but there too the tenant had failed to comply with such direction

Rent Controller was not required to have first framed the issue of relationship of landlady and tenant in such circumstances before ordering the tenant to vacate the rented premises

Ejectment order passed by Rent Controller was maintained

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

When a person inducted in the rented premises subsequently denied his/her status as tenant, it was not a rule of thumb that the Rent Controller was bound to first frame point for determination/issue to such effect and decide it before passing a rent order to secure the interest of the landlord during the pendency of such proceedings.

Bank, while filing an ejectment application had introduced itself as a company incorporated under Companies Ordinance, 1984

Document styled as Officer's power of attorney had been filed without any resolution of the Board of Directors of Bank, specifically authorizing such nominated person to represent Bank and to use such power on behalf of Bank

Bank contended that if in every case a separate power of attorney to initiate legal proceedings was required, that would raise numerous administrative problems as well as huge expenses for the Bank

Validity

If law required to perform an act in a particular manner, that particular act was to be performed in that manner alone

Document annexed with ejectment application empowering a law officer of Bank did not conform to the requirement of relevant law, providing a valid document of power-of-attorney

Bank, if required to initiate a legal proceeding was obliged to execute a separate and distinct power-of-attorney authorizing any of its officer in view of resolution of the Board of Directors and every such power was to be distinctly provided

Bank keeping in view its stated administrative problems could not be absolved from its legal duty

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Ejectment application of company would rightly be dismissed on sole ground that person who signed the application was not authorized by company through a resolution of Board of Directors nor any power-of-attorney was executed in his favour for institution of ejectment proceedings.

If objection was raised about competence of the Officer of Bank instituting ejectment proceedings against tenants of Bank, burden was upon the Bank to establish that person instituting ejectment proceedings was authorized by Bank.

Person dealing with collection of rent, enhancement of rent and negotiation with the tenant for evicting the premises fell within the expression "landlord" and ejectment application filed by such person was maintainable.

Co-owner fell within the expression "landlord" and ejectment application filed by such person was maintainable.

Contention of the petitioner/tenant was that the landlord addressed the ejectment petition to senior civil judge/Rent Controller, whereas under the law the same was to be instituted in the court of Special Judge (Rent), therefore the impugned judgment of Trial Court was without jurisdiction

Validity

Ejectment petition had been addressed to the Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, however the same Judge had been duly notified as Special Judge (Rent)

Mere non-mentioning of the correct designation of the Trial Court had not taken away the jurisdiction of the Special Judge (Rent), who was seized of the matter and decided the same

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Rent Controller, had the discretion to condone default in the payment of rent in a just, equitable and fair manner.

Rent sent through cheque, being not a valid tender, would be of no consequence and would constitute a default in payment of rent.

Once the tenant had admitted parting with the possession of the premises in favour of a third party, the burden of proof that it did not amount to subletting, would squarely shift upon the tenant in terms of S. 17(2)(ii)(b) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963.

Question as to whether after expiry of tenancy agreement, tenant was to be benefitted with a grace period as mentioned in the (expired) lease agreement or the statutory period of sixty days mentioned in S. 17(2)(i) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963

Even after the expiry of tenancy period, the terms as regards the mode and time of payment shall continue to remain in force between the parties, being not repugnant to the statutory provisions

Where the parties had mutually agreed for advance payment of rent for each month, then the said term was binding on the parties even after the expiry of the terms of tenancy agreement

Ejectment order was passed and appeal was allowed accordingly.

If a tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant, tenancy was automatically terminated and he was liable to eviction.

Petitioner inducted as tenant under a written agreement, could not challenge the title of the landlord without first surrendering the possession to him.

Constitutional jurisdiction could not be exercised in favour of the person who came to Court with soiled hands in order to satisfy from greedy and covetous instincts

Concurrent findings recorded by two Courts of competent jurisdiction after due consideration of material on record, were not open to question in constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Landlady had established her ownership of the demised property by producing necessary documents; she produced tenancy agreement signed by her and witnesses and rent receipts issued by her

Tenant failed to made out a case for interference in concurrent findings

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Rent Controller had been given powers of summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and was not bound in every case to follow the procedure stipulated in the Code of Civil Procedure

Rent Controller had been given powers to make orders after holding such inquiry as the thought fit

Question to decide the nature and extent of inquiry was purely discretion of Rent Controller and parties had no right to insist upon for production of such evidence in support of their case

Writ petition was dismissed.

Petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, thus the burden of proof heavily shifted on him to prove his title

Petitioner though in his written reply had challenged ownership of the house in question, but could not prove the same through oral or documentary evidence

Constitutional petition was dismissed being bereft of any meritable consideration.

No absolute rule existed that in every case, the landlord must appear in person in support of his claim; and exceptions could always be there when on account of some unavoidable circumstances it was not possible for the landlord to appear and support his plea.

Landlord had alleged that tenant who was paying rent had stopped paying the same from August, 2004 and did not pay or tender rent from that period to January, 2005 and being defaulter, was liable to ejectment on that ground

Validity

Rent receipts produced by the tenant had shown that none of the said receipts pertained to the period which the landlord claimed that the tenant was defaulter

Most of said receipts pertained to other cases

Said receipts therefore, were not helpful to the tenant, who did not appear in the court as a witness to disprove the allegation that he was defaulter

Tenant who was proved to be defaulter, was liable to be ejected on that ground

High Court, after perusal of record had concluded that judgment of Appellate Tribunal was based on the record

When the judgment of the lower Tribunal was decided on the record, and default in payment of rent was proved, writ petition could not be decided against the record

Appeal against judgment of High Court, was dismissed by the Supreme Court, in circumstances.

Not less than 52 documents and mostly receipts of rent showing deposit of rent, either directly to the landlord or through the process of deposit in the court, were placed by the tenant on record, but none of such receipt, had shown the payment of rent for alleged period (five months) for which default had been alleged

When the rent in question became due, there seemed to be no attempt on the part of the tenant to tender such rent by any substituted modes, either through money order or by depositing of the same before the court of Rent Controller

Landlord who appeared in the court, was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but he was never confronted with the alleged practice of receiving rent periodically in lump sum after considerable gaps of time

Wilful default in payment of rent for period in question having been established on record, and there being no serious denial by the tenant with regard to the damage to the property, findings arrived at by the forums below, being justified, called for no interference

Appeal was dismissed.

Appeal filed by the tenant against the ejectment order was allowed by the Appellate Court and the case was remanded to Special Judge Rent for decision afresh

Rent Controller on the post remand proceedings, allowed the leave application permitting the tenant to contest the ejectment petition

Counsel for landlord had contended that leave application having been filed by the tenant with a delay of one day, Rent Controller was not justified in granting the permission to tenant to contest the ejectment petition

In the present case provisions of Limitation Act, 1908 had not been made applicable to the matter for the reason that special law had itself provided the timeframe for conducting proceedings thereunder and for availing further remedies

Section 8 of West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956 had provided the exclusion of the first day in calculating the period of limitation

Said provision, more particularly was applicable to the statutes to which the Limitation Act, 1908 was not applicable

If the time of 10 days prescribed for filing leave application was counted according to the provisions of S.8 of West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956, application filed by the tenant was well within time

Application filed by the tenant for contesting the ejectment petition, was within the statutory period in view of that beneficial interpretation of S.8 of West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956.

Both the courts below erred by not considering the fact taken at preliminary stage that the person claiming to be the Chief Trustee had no authority/resolution of the Charitable Trust to file the case

Even the person claiming to be Chief Trustee stated during evidence that he could produce the Trust Deed if required but failed to produce the same

On failure to produce Trust Deed, the names of trustees of the Trust could not be ascertained and therefore, photocopy of the resolution filed by the said Chief Trustee with his affidavit-in-evidence before Rent Controller, which was not admissible otherwise, had no value or sanctity

Rent Controller and Lower Appellate Court committed jurisdictional error by not giving any findings on the authority of the person who filed the ejectment case

High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, found glaring irregularities, infirmities, illegalities, misreading, non-reading of evidence and jurisdictional error in orders of both Rent Controller as well as Lower Appellate Court and set aside eviction orders passed by both the courts below and ejectment application was dismissed

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Power of attorney was executed by landlord in year, 2003, whereas property in question was purchased by landlord in February, 2005

Effect

Landlord was neither owner of the property nor landlord of tenant in year, 2003, hence he had no authority to appoint attorney for filing of rent case against tenant.

Application of tenant for setting aside the ex parte order had concurrently been dismissed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Court

Validity

No evidence was on record to show that the tenant was either served or having knowledge of the ejectment petition filed' against him-Daily newspaper in which alleged notice was published, was a publication of limited circulation, and not normally read and it seemed that the publication was ordered and aimed at accomplishing the formality of effecting service

Such service could not be termed as "service effected" as required under S.25 of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001

Proceeflings in the case, held thereafter, could not be considered to have been held after affording opportunity of hearing to the tenant, in circumstances

Section 24 of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001, had explicately provided that no order in respect of increase of rent; or interference with the amenities enjoyed by the tenant; or order for carrying out necessary repairs; or eviction of tenant, were to be made by the Rent Controller, except after holding an inquiry; and affording to the parties an opportunity of hearing

Without effecting service .as required, order passed by the Rent Controller for ejectment of tenant, would be violative of the provisions of S.24 of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001

Tenant having not been served by the Rent Controller in the prescribed manners, ex parte order of ejectment passed against the tenant without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the tenant would not sustain

Constitutional petition was accepted subject to payment of costs with the direction to the Rent Controller to expeditiously dispose of the ejectment petition after affording opportunity of hearing to the tenant in the prescribed manner, in circumstances.

Counsel for the tenant had contended that Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 was promulgated on 23-1-2001, but as notification with regard to application of said Ordinance to urban areas of Islamabad Capital Territory was issued on 1-8-2002 and notification regarding residential and commercial buildings was issued on 24-6-2004, practically said Ordinance had become effective on 26-6-2004 and ejectment application was filed on 4-2-2003

Contention was that at the time of filing ejectment application Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 was not in force, order passed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Appellate Court was coram non judice

Validity

Under S.1(3) of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001, said Ordinance which was promulgated on 23-1-2001, would come into force at once

Since ejectment application was filed in the year 2003 when Ordinance had come into force, Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to entertain ejectment application as by that time the urban area stood defined and disputed property fell in the said defined urban area of Islamabad

According to S.2(J)(ii) of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001, in case of death of the tenant, members of his family who continued to be in possession or occupation of the premises in question would be considered as tenant

In the present case one of the legal heirs of deceased tenant who was in possession of the premises in question and was represented by his counsel, was to be considered as tenant and it was not necessary that all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant were to be impleaded

Tenant who was proved to be defaulter in payment of rent, was rightly ordered to be ejected both by the Rent Controller and Appellate Court below, on ground of default in payment of rent

Both courts below who had properly appreciated the facts, had rightly passed order for ejectment, which could not be interfered with

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Tenant appeared and case was adjourned for permission to contest application, but since no copy of ejectment application was served upon the tenant to enable him to file application to contest the suit he could not file the application

Neither tenant nor his counsel appeared on the adjourned date despite his attendance was marked by the Reader of the court

Action was taken against the tenant under S. 22(2) of Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007

Contention of counsel for the tenant was that tenant had not been provided copy of eviction petition, along with summons, so that tenant could have filed application for leave to contest, was not warranted under the law, as such ground was never agitated before the Appellate Court

Tenant could not be allowed to raise a new ground

Judgments passed by both the courts below were in accordance with law and no illegality was in that

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Tenant appeared in the court, and filed written reply and denied relationship. of landlord and tenant between the parties

Before appearance of tenant on the first date, while entertain­ing the application, the Rent Controller passed tentative rent order to deposit arrears of rent and monthly rent

Tenant after appearing in the proceedings made an application for recall of said' tentative rent order

Rent Controller refused to recall said order and struck off the defence of the tenant; and passed ejectment order against the tenant

Appeal filed by the tenant against order of Rent Controller was dismissed by Appellate Court below on the ground that appeal was not entertainable against order passed by Rent Controller under S.13(6) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959

Tentative rent order passed by Rent Controller was behind the back of tenant, without taking into consideration the matter whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties

First Appellate Court had not applied its mind to the facts of the case or it seemed as it had not even seen the orders passed by the Rent Controller

Orders passed by Rent Controller and that of Appellate Court, were set aside and case was remanded by High Court to the Rent Controller with the direction to frame an issue with regard to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant first and then decide that issue after taking evidence of the parties.

Landlord himself issued notice in respect of premises which was in dispute, therefore, he was bound by pleadings and documentary evidence which had been produced by him.

Petitioner/ tenant filed reply to the ejectment application and case was adjourned and on the same day landlord filed an application for early hearing of ejectment application, upon which a notice was issued to the tenant for fixation of application for early hearing

On said date though notice was issued to the tenant only upon the application for early hearing, he was proceeded against ex parte in the main ejectment application and case was adjourned for ex parte evidence

On the adjourned date of hearing, ex parte evidence of landlord was recorded and case was adjourned for orders

On adjourned date of hearing tenant filed application for setting aside ex parte proceedings, but same having been dismissed, tenant had filed constitutional petition

Proceedings in the case were not concluded in a transparent manner as firstly tenant could not have been proceeded against ex parte on the date when notice was issued to him only upon the application for early hearing and he had no intimation about the fixation of the main ejectment application; secondly tenant had moved an application for setting aside ex parte proceedings first after nineteen days of the ex parte proceedings which should have been set aside because justice should not only be done, but it should be seen to have been done

Impugned order, in circumstances was arbitrary, perverse and seemed to be tainted with mala fide

Even otherwise, law favoured adjudication on merits rather on technicalities

Allowing constitutional petition, impugned order was set aside and case was remitted to District Judge for entrustment of the same to some other Rent Controller for its onward disposal in accordance with law.

Ejectment application on ground of default in payment of rent, was allowed by the Rent Controller with direction to tenant to vacate the premises and handover its vacant possession to the landlady within sixty days

Appellate Court, however set aside order of Rent Controller

Validity

Fact that tenancy had started on the basis of rent agreement, executed between the parties, initially was admitted by the tenant at the time of reply given by his advocate, however, subsequently during the course of proceedings he denied the execution of rent agreement; and claimed that he was in possession of the premises prior to 1985

Such denial on the part of the tenant, appeared an afterthought and that plea had been taken by him only to avoid the question of default

Claim of tenant was that he had paid rent in dispute but had failed to discharge the burden thereof

Tenant had admitted that he was neither informed by the landlady nor by her attorney to pay rent to anybody else, but when he started depositing rent in the court, he as per his own admission started depositing the same to unconcerned persons which also amounted to not paying/tendering rent to the landlady by the tenant

Order passed by Rent Controller, was quite legal and appropriate in the circumstances of the case and as a result of misreading of evidence, same had been set aside by the Appellate Court

Order of Appellate Court being in violation of principles of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and the result of misreading of the evidence, same was not maintainable and was liable to be set aside

Constitutional petition was allowed with costs and order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside; as a consequence thereof order passed by Rent Controller was maintained

Tenant was directed to vacate the premises in question within 30 days and hand over its possession to the landlady.

Rent Controller on application filed by the landlady under S.16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, directed the tenant to deposit arrears of rent within specified period and to deposit future rent, but the tenant failed to comply with said tentative rent order

Defence of the tenant was struck off and she was directed to hand over the vacant possession of premises to landlady within specified period

First appeal filed against order of Rent Controller having been dismissed by the Appellate Court, tenant had filed constitutional petition

From the order passed by the Rent Controller as well as judgment of Appellate Court, it was crystal clear that the tenant had failed to comply with orders of the Rent Controller with regard to the arrears of rent as well as future rent, not only that she had obtained one year's time for vacating the premises in very mysterious circumstances

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondent/tenant had clearly admitted that firstly he paid rent of shop in question for more than 20 years to its previous owner; and secondly he even paid rent to the petitioner/landlady for a period of two months-Respondent/tenant in his written statement had stated that he had constructed shop in question himself on piece of land which he had acquired 27 years ago

Tenant, however, could not state that as to under what authority he acquired that land; did he purchase it or was it gifted to him or he was a mere trespasser

Landlord could not be the owner, but once a tenant, always a tenant'

Having himself taken position in his written statement that respondent was paying rent and therefore tenant, he could not take different position and to say that he ceased being tenant

Where tenant denied relationship of landlord and tenant and such relationship stood proved, then there was no other way left to the court but to order ejectment of the tenant

In the present case respondent firstly accepted that he was a tenant, then accepted that he stopped paying rent

Order of Rent Controller. hereby ejectment application filed by the landlady was accepted, was in conformity with the law.

Protection from eviction under S.30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 disappeared with the repeal of said Act upon the promulgation of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975

Principles.

Landlord filed ejectment application against tenant on ground that shop in question was required by him for his personal need and he had no other shop and that he wanted to- do business therein

Said ejectment application was dismissed by Rent Controller by observing that shop was not required by landlord in good faith as he was already possessing a factory

Said judgment of Rent Controller, however was set aside by Appellate Authority

Validity

Landlord appeared in the Court and deposed on oath about his personal bona fide need contending that he was jobless for the last 3 years and his son was maintaining him

Counsel for tenant was unable to pinpoint any material l irregularity in impugned judgment to show any jurisdictional error for setting aside judgment of Appellate Authority

Appellate Authority had rightly set aside the order of Rent Controller as plea-.of personal need of landlord was not taken into consideration at all

Petitioner was directed to hand over vacant possession of shop in question to landlord within specified period.

Rent Controller found that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and that tenant had committed default in payment of rent and directed him to hand over peaceful vacant possession of premises in question to the landlady

Appeal filed by tenant against judgment of the Rent Controller was also dismissed by Appellate Court

Constitutional petition was filed against concurrent judgment of forums below

Validity

Appellate court had rightly rejected appeal of tenant filed against order of Rent Controller

Order of Appellate Court did not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or material irregularity, which was the basic requirement for deciding the matter by the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.