Payment of rent

2025 SCMR 1649 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 17Ejectment of tenantDefaultPayment of rentProofAdjustment of loanTentative Rent OrderNon-complianceEffectAppellants/landlords were aggrieved of setting aside of ejectment order against respondents/tenants

Plea raised by respondents/tenants was that rent was being adjusted towards payment of loan by predecessor-in-interest of appellants/landlords

Validity

No documentary evidence to such effect was produced before the Courts below, which otherwise was sufficient to establish the willful default in payment of rent for period in question

Non-compliance of Tentative Rent Order itself was sufficient ground for ejectment of appellants / tenants without further inquiry into merits as it had constituted willful default

High Court passed its judgment without appreciating factual position and evidence produced by parties in support of their respective claims and had misdirected itself while setting aside order passed by Rent Controller on the issue of default in payment of rent, nor could appreciate the effect of non-compliance of Tentative Rent Order passed

Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by High Court on the ground of default in payment of rent and judgment of Rent Controller was upheld

Appeal was allowed.

2023 CLC 871 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.13Eviction of tenantPayment of rentScope

Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, stipulates that if the tenancy relationship is undisputed, the Rent Controller will direct the tenant to deposit all rent payments due and require regular deposits until the final decision of the case

Tenant must deposit the monthly rent payment before the fifteenth of each month

Rent payment becomes due on the last day of the preceding month, and the Rent Controller has no power to extend the payment deadline

Tenant is also not allowed to deposit the rent at his discretion.

2022 CLC 1787 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 10Payment of rentScope

Where there is no evidence with regard to refusal of the landlord to accept the rent so as to provide authority or justification to the tenant to deposit the rent in Court, and there being no evidence to that effect the tenant could not absolve himself from being a defaulter for the relevant period; and, it is mandatory for the tenant to bring sufficient and reliable evidence on record that the landlord had refused to accept the rent so as to entitle him for deposit of rent in Court.

2022 CLC 1787 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.10Payment of rentScope

Subsections (1) and (3) of S.10 prescribe the time and mode, respectively, of payment/tender of the monthly rent by the tenant

Under subsection (3), the tenant would be entitled to tender the monthly rent to the landlord through a postal money order or deposit the same with the Rent Controller only when the landlord had refused or avoided to accept such rent from him

Plain reading of subsection (3) showed that the refusal or avoidance by the landlord in accepting the monthly rent from the tenant is a condition precedent for entitling the tenant or justifying him to tender the monthly rent to the landlord through a postal money order or to deposit the same with the Rent Controller

Tenant shall not be entitled in law to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller without first offering/tendering the same directly to the landlord and only when, upon such offer/tender, the landlord had refused or avoided to accept the rent from him

Burden to prove the tender of rent to the landlord and the refusal or avoidance by the landlord in accepting the rent from him shall lie upon the tenant.

2021 CLC 623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 5, 6, 7 & 9Agreement between landlord and tenantContents of tenancy agreementPayment of rentEffect of non-complianceScopePunjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, does not debar entertainment of ejectment petition in case of oral tenancy

Palpable object of the law is to compel the parties to enter into a tenancy agreement within the purview and scope of the provisions of Ss. 5, 6 and 7 of the Act

Penalty has been provided by law for the breach of the obligations, envisaged thereby, in that, where the tenancy agreement is not so entered and registered and a landlord or the tenant approaches the Tribunal for the enforcement of his right(s) under the Act, he has to pay a fine

Non-registration of rent agreement or oral tenancy is an irregularity that entails penal consequences

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

2021 CLC 1021 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.12Suit for specific performance of Memorandum of UnderstandingExecution of Memorandum of UnderstandingConsideration amount, receiving ofPayment of rent

Plaintiffs sought specific performance of Memorandum of Understanding whereby defendants were to sell suit property to plaintiffs

Validity

Defendants had withdrawn entire sale consideration deposited by plaintiffs vide a consent order

For almost a decade, defendants were enjoying that amount to their advantage

Plaintiffs had paid rentals to defendants, therefore, plaintiffs were not entitled to pay monthly rent to defendants as tenants

Defendant entering into Memorandum of Understanding was not nominee of other defendant rather he himself was licensee and was authorized to enter into Memorandum of Understanding which was executable under the law

Suit was decreed in circumstances.

2017 YLRN 361 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 10Payment of rentMode of paymentCheque

Section 10 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 does not provide payment of rent through cheques.

2017 CLCN 167 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 10Payment of rentPrincples

Payment of accumulated rent even once paid by the tenant would make him liable to eviction.

2017 CLCN 86 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 10Payment of rentScope

Landlord was bound to issue rent receipts to tenant; in case of refusal tenant could resort to proceedings under S. 10, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

2015 MLD 171 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 17Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 117Ejectment petitionMaintainabilityDenial of relationship of landlord and tenant by tenantBurden of proofDefault in payment of rentAncestral propertyRent Controller, jurisdiction ofPayment of rentScope

Contention of landlord was that tenants had committed default in payment of rent whereas tenants had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties

Ejectment petition was accepted by the Rent Controller

Validity

Alleged rented premises was occupied by the tenants in lieu of vacating ancestral property as co-sharer and same was not taken into possession as tenant

No evidence to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant was discussed in the impugned order

Burden of proof to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant was on the landlord

Issue with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant was framed without placing/noting burden of proof which was improper exercise of jurisdiction

Findings that tenants could not prove the relationship of landlord and tenant were against the principle of law of evidence and were not sustainable in the eye of law

Relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties

Landlord had failed to prove that tenants paid rent as a consideration for possession or occupation of the premises

Present application for eviction was not maintainable and Rent Controller had no jurisdiction in the matter

Eviction could not be sought before the Rent Controller without establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant

Payment of rent was sine qua non for the relationship of landlord and tenant

Findings recorded by the Rent Controller were reversed and impugned order was set aside

Eviction petition filed by the landlord was dismissed

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.

2015 CLC 570 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 10, 13 & 21Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional jurisdictionScopeWilful default by tenant in payment of rentPayment of rentTenant's obligationModes of paymentBurden of proof of payment

Once landlord stated on oath that tenant had defaulted in payment of rent, burden of proof shifted to tenant to rebut the assertion

Tenant was under obligation to offer rent to landlord and only in case of refusal of landlord to accept the same, tenant could resort to other modes of payment of rent i.e., remittance through money order or depositing the same in court

Tenant had to prove that he had offered rent to landlord and that landlord had refused or avoided to accept the same

Tenant failed to establish that he had fulfilled the requirements of law

Tenant used to pay rent in lump sum for period of 6 months and 20 months, that is, after committing default which was not permissible under the law

Merely because no one came to collect the rent on behalf of landlord, tenant could not be absolved of the responsibility to pay rent on time

Omission to enforce one's legal right strictly could not give rise to inference that the right had been abandoned

Condonation of tenant's lapses by landlord could not be interpreted a licence to tenant to adopt such practice/lapses as a perpetual arrangement

Under S.27 of the General Clauses Act, prepaid envelope sent by registered post on correct address would be deemed to have been served unless proved otherwise

Tenant admitted that address on legal notice sent by landlord was correct; legal notice would be deemed to have been served upon tenant

Extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution, aimed at preventing abuse of process of law, such jurisdiction could not be exercised by High Court to interfere with the discretionary orders of the subordinate courts made under powers conferred on such courts by special statutes

Conferment of only one right of appeal under S.21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 showed that legislature intended to shorten the span of litigation in such cases

Interference by High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution, in judicial orders passed by Tribunal of competent jurisdiction merely on the ground that another view of the matter was possible would defeat the object of (special) statute by prolonging litigation

Jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution, could not be invoked in routine cases as an additional remedy to hamper the findings of fact

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

2014 MLD 1084 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 15, 7 & 20Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionApplication for eviction of tenantPayment of rentProcedureEjectment petition was filed on 27-3-2013 and rent was deposited on 30-3-2013 after institution of the same

Tenant neither followed the terms of tenancy agreement nor the provisions of S. 7(2) and (3) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009

Payment of accumulated rent could not be considered a proper payment

Tenant deposited the rent for the defaulted period but he could not take refuge by such deposit of rent nor that would cause prejudice to the right of the landlord

Tenant should have made a tender or deposited rent on refusal of landlord or his agent to collect the same after seeking permission from the court but no such steps were taken in the present case

Tenant had failed to point out any illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the two courts below

Constitutional petition being devoid of any force was dismissed in limine and tenant was directed to handover the vacant possession of the shop to the landlord within a period of 45-days from passing of the order.

2014 MLD 1084 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 7 & 20Payment of rentProcedure

Tenant should make a tender or deposit rent in the court on refusal of landlord or his agent to collect the same after seeking permission from the court.

2013 YLR 1654 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.10Payment of rentLandlord and tenant, relationship ofScope

Depositing of rent was an admission that the petitioner was residing in the capacity of tenant and denial of relationship as tenant and the landlady between the parties did not merit consideration.

2013 YLR 1405 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.18 & 15(2)(ii)Change in ownershipPayment of rentDefault

New owner was required to send an intimation of transfer of the premises to tenant in writing by registered post and tenant was provided a period of 30 days time after receipt of the notice, to pay the rent to avoid the consequences of default in payment of rent.

2013 CLC 119 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 10(2) & 10(3)Payment of rentProcedureDeposit of rent in courtScopeTenant was under an obligation to tender rent directly to landlord

Course to remit rent through money order or depositing the same in court was to be adopted only when the landlord refused to accept the rent.

2013 CLC 119 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 10(2) & 10(3)Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionPayment of rentProcedureDeposit of rent in courtScopeMandatory obligation of tenant to first offer rent directly to landlord before depositing the same in court

Ejectment of tenant (respondent) was sought on grounds of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide need of landlord (petitioner)

Tenant contended that he had deposited the rent in court within the prescribed period by law and that during pendency of case another apartment owned by landlord fell vacant but same was not occupied, therefore, personal need of landlord was not established

Landlord contended that tenant did not offer rent directly to him and straightaway deposited the same in court

Validity

Tenant was under an obligation to tender rent directly to landlord, which emanated from section 10(2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Said obligation could not be termed as directory but was mandatory and condition precedent for continuation of tenancy rights

Course to remit rent through money order or depositing the same in court was to be adopted only when the landlord refused to accept the rent

If rent deposited in court, without it first being offered to the landlord, was accepted as valid tender then it would cause tremendous inconvenience to the landlord and would create hurdles in the timely receipt of monthly rent, which could not be permitted

Tenant, in the present case, had committed default in the payment of rent by not offering the same directly to the landlord

Another apartment had fallen vacant in the same building, personal need of landlord in such a case, would not be treated as bona fide unless it came on record that vacant premises was not suitable or was insufficient for the needs of the landlord

Constitutional petition was allowed and tenant was given six months' time to vacate the premises and hand over its vacant possession to the landlord.