Default in payment of rent

Petitioners / tenants were aggrieved of eviction orders passed by Rent Controller, which was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Held: To circumvent repercussions of default, a tenant cannot refute landlord's ownership

Petitioners/tenants acknowledged their induction as tenants in demised shops, thus, under Art.115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, they were estopped from denying title of respondent / landlord

Tenant is only permitted to dispute title/relationship of landlord of the individual who inducted him as tenant by first relinquishing possession of the premises to the landlord

Petitioners/tenants were obligated to return possession of the premises to respondent / landlord

Petitioners/tenants during cross-examination, conceded in their respective testimonies that they had not paid monthly rent to respondent / landlord post year 2004, nor had they deposited rent in Court since year 2007

Conclusions reached by both the lower Courts were predicated on petitioners'/tenants' admission of willful default in payment of rent

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent findings which had been thoroughly examined by two Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Delivery of possession of the demised premises during the pendency of appeal, which culminated into dismissal of appeal having become infructuous

Validity

During the pendency of appeal against ejectment, where the tenant had already left the demised premises by delivering its possession to the landlord/landlady, the appeal had to be dismissed having become infructuous

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Eviction petitions were dismissed by the Rent Tribunal, against which appeals were preferred, which were accepted on the ground of default only as the ground of subletting the shops was withdrawn by the landlord

Contentions of the petitioners/tenants was that the attorney, who had filed eviction petition, appeared in the court to give evidence without any authority and that the ground of default remained unproved, thus, Appellate Court could not have passed the eviction orders

Validity

Landlord being a company was required to be represented by some of its officials having been conferred due authority in clear terms, which requirement was fulfilled by way of filing of the power of attorney (PoA), thus, no further document was required to confirm authority of the attorney to represent the landlord in the Court proceedings

Landlord representative by submitting a copy of PoA, not objected to by the other side, had showed his authority, which was sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirement of adequate representation of the landlord in the Court of law

Proceedings before the Rent Controller were quasi judicial in nature and technicality of any nature frustrating the aim and object of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, (SRPA) could not be allowed to prevail

PoA clearly stated that all the powers necessary to represent the landlord were bestowed upon the attorney to appear and act on behalf the landlord in the proceedings before the Rent Controller, thus, no further evidence on the point was required, nor on any technicality the evidence of the attorney could be discarded

Practice of paying rent in a lump sum did not override the terms of the tenancy agreement or the purpose of the SRPO

Precedent of how rent was paid in the past between the parties did not absolve the tenants from their obligation to pay monthly rent in advance as per the agreement

Landlord had the right to seek monthly rent payments in advance as agreed between the parties

High Court found no evidence that the landlord fraudulently created a ground of default in its favour by delaying rent payments of the tenants

Constitutional petitions were dismissed, in circumstances.

Ejectment application filed by the landlord was allowed by the Rent Controllerand upon appeal preferred by the tenant the ejectment order was upheld by the Appellate Court

Held: Appellate Court rightly found that the petitioner was indeed the tenant of the property and relationship of landlord and tenant did exist between the parties and as per judgments of Supreme Court the execution of agreement to sell would not change the relationship of landlord and tenant until a decree for specific performance was obtained

Question of title could not be decided by the Rent Controller and no interest or even a charge could be created on the property in dispute on the basis of an agreement to sell

Tenant failed to point out any legal infirmity in the appellate judgment

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

The respondent No.1 (landlord) filed ejectment petition on the ground of default by petitioner (tenant) and personal bona fide need

Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application and appeal of the petitioner (tenant) was dismissed

Against the concurrent findings of the courts below petitioner (tenant) filed the present constitutional petition

Held Once the landlord stepped into the witness box and the plea of personal need went unrebutted, the ejectment application must be allowed under S.15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

It was evident from perusal of the cross-examination conducted on the respondent No.1 (landlord) that the plea of the landlord had not been shattered and no further cross-examination was conducted and only a suggestion regarding personal bona fide need was put to the witness and no other question in relation to the same was asked

For seeking eviction of a tenant from the rented premises the only requirement of law was to prove bona fide need by the landlord

However, where a landlord who obtained possession of a building from a tenant on account of his personal bona fide need and then re-let the building or premises to any person other than the previous tenant or utilized the premises for a use other than his personal use within one year of such possession then he would liable to be punished with fine not exceeding one year's rent of the building premises and the tenant who was evicted may apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing that he be restored possession

This accountability mechanism provided under S.15-A of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was introduced to ensure that ejectment proceedings were not abused and due protection was given to the tenant in cases where landlord had misused the provisions of the Ordinance, 1979

The protection given by the said provision was also available to the petitioner, however, his case did not fall within the parameters of the same, hence, the Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner / tenant claimed that subsequently it paid the rent due, therefore, there was no default under proviso to S. 15(2)(ii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Validity

Provision of proviso to S. 15(2)(ii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was available, where sole ground in rent application against tenant was default and the tenant on the first day of hearing had admitted his liability to pay

Rent Controller was to satisfy that tenant had not made such default on any previous occasion and the default was not exceeding six months

Only if such conditions were met, the Rent Controller was mandated to direct tenant to pay all rent claimed on a date to be fixed by Rent Controller, thereafter he was mandated to dismiss the rent application

High Court declined to interfere in eviction orders passed by two Courts below, as subsequent tender of rent by petitioner / tenant did not extinguish the default

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

When a landlord/landlady pursues eviction on the grounds of personal bona fide need and non-payment of rent, such a claim cannot be dismissed simply by challenging the ownership of the property

It is pertinent to consider the substance of the landlord's claim regarding the legitimate need for the property and the alleged default in rent payment

In the case at hand the landlady (respondent) had established the default in payment of rent as well as her personal bona fide need and had also adduced affidavit in this regard

Thus, both the grounds for eviction i.e. default in payment of rent and personal bona fide need had not been disputed by the tenant (petitioner)

Petitioner had not produced any evidence to rebut the claims of the landlady

Petition filed by the tenant was dismissed and leave was refused.

When the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is proved or it has been shown that they have been acting as landlord and tenant, its continuance is presumed and the burden of proving the contrary lies upon the person who denies such legal relationship

Tenant in his written statement had pleaded that he had been paying the rent to the landlady and later, landlady had sold out the subject house to him

Tenant had admitted his induction in the subject house as tenant of the landlady, thus, the burden of proof was on the tenant by establishing that he had ceased to stand in the relationship of landlord and tenant

Tenant in his written statement had not pleaded the price against which he had purchased the subject house and he could not bring on record any document in proof of the pleaded sale transaction

Tenant could not produce proof of payment of the price to the landlady or to anyone else, on her behalf

Oral assertion of the tenant was found baseless and his denial of relationship of landlord and tenant was contumacious

At the beginning of tenancy, tenant came into possession of the subject house and then he, by entering into the contract of tenancy and by payment of rent, had acknowledged the title of the landlady on the subject house

Where tenant denies the title of his landlord and it is established that the landlord has inducted him in possession of the tenement, he will forfeit his tenancy and be liable to ejectment forthwith

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Contention of the tenants was that since they had transferred the possession to sub-tenants, therefore, they were liable to pay rent and likewise the plea of sub-tenants were that since they were not direct tenants of landladies, thus, they were also not liable to pay rent

Validity

Failure in payment of the monthly rent even for a single day if not explained with plausible justification amounts to deliberate default in payment of the rent and in such an eventuality, the tenant could not be allowed to remain in possession of the rented premises rather he shall be directed to hand over the vacant possession along with outstanding dues to landlord

First subletees were not direct tenants of the landladies but it was an admitted position that they had entered into rented premises without the consent and permission of the landladies and it was also admitted fact that they had transferred the possession to second subletees and that too without any permission by the landladies, thus, in such circumstances both the subletees could not resist the ejectment of the creation of their tenancy with the tenants, who were the direct tenants of the landladies

Thus, the plea of the first subletees was misconceived and it was their joint liability

Outstanding rent may be paid/deposited by anyone of them in favour of the landladies

Landladies were entitled for receipt of the entire outstanding rent w.e.f. institution of the ejectment application till handing over the vacant possession of the premises to them

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

One of the appellants / landlords ,while appearing as a witness, categorically asserted that the respondents / tenants had defaulted in payment of rent w.e.f. January, 2013

Though said assertion was refuted by the respondents / tenants in their reply but they had failed in discharging the onus

When the landlord seeks eviction of his tenant(s) on the ground of default in payment of rent, he has to only assert the factum of default supported by affidavit and the onus then would shift upon the tenant(s) to prove that he/they has/have not defaulted in payment of rent

Rent Controller founded his conclusion by wrongly relying upon evidence produced by the respondents / tenants

Thus, the appellants / landlords remained successful in proving that the respondents / tenants committed default in payment of rent

High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller ; consequently , the ejectment petition stood accepted and the respondents / tenants were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the rented-premises (house) to the appellants / landlord within thirty (30) days

Appeal , filed by the landlords, was allowed.

Contention of the petitioner /tenant was that respondent /landlord had not claimed eviction on the expiry of lease or default in payment of rent specifically, so eviction passed on said two counts was illegal

Validity

Lease agreement, in the present case, showed that amongst other grounds of its terms and conditions, the reasons on which the eviction could be solicited was the breach of terms and conditions of the rent agreement, and a request was made by the respondent /landlord before the Tribunal that the petitioner/ tenant be directed to handover the vacant possession of the rented premises

Relevant clause of the rent agreement showed that, the period of lease , from the date of commencement of tenancy, was 11 months which was renewable with mutual consent of the parties, and one of the other commitments made therein was to vacate the premises and deliver it to the landlord on the expiry of lease period which was obviously 11 months

The same (vacation on the expiry of lease ) was one of the obligations as provided under S. 13(1)(d) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (Act, 2009) whereas S.15(a) of the Act, 2009 provided for the right of eviction on the expiry of lease while S.15(d) of the Act, 2009 entailed eviction of tenant due to violation of an obligation under S.13

Even otherwise, no receipt or document was produced on record by the petitioner / tenant in support of his plea of payment of additional security nor any written agreement of renewal of tenancy was adduced

Lease agreement was, admittedly, unregistered which automatically lapsed on 11 months

Creation of lease or renewal thereof for more than one year could not be accepted without a registered document which was not the case in the present case

Record revealed that the Appellate Court took note of the fact that while admitting the appeal for regular hearing, it was directed that the petitioner should deposit monthly rent with annual increase on or before 10th of each month regularly but the petitioner deposited the rent after 10th of each month which was evident from the receipts ,and which was not only a violation of the agreement of tenancy but also the order of the Appellate Court

Petitioner / tenant could not avoid the consequences of default committed in payment of rent and the ground of violation of the tenancy agreement as well

It was thus obvious that the question pertaining to payment of rent was only considered for the purposes of observing the violation of the order of the court, the terms of agreement of tenancy and also the violation of law

Objection raised by the petitioner was, therefore, devoid of any legal substance

Considering the facts as they emerged on record, where the expiry of lease was evident, the Special Judge (Rent) had the inherent jurisdiction to mould the relief according to altered circumstances in the larger interest of justice

Both the Courts below had rightly passed eviction orders against the petitioner/tenant

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Neither the petitioner/tenant rebutted relationship of landlord and tenant amongst the parties nor he brought any material to state as to when and how he had paid the rent amount for the last four years or so

At no point of time, petitioner had agitated to show his bona fide to pay rent to the respondent/landlord, and even had not pleaded the same before the Tribunal

Record was silent, on the part of the petitioner/tenant, about payment of rent amount during the period of default and receipts thereof

Moreover, the petitioner/tenant had failed to shake the evidence brought on record with regard to the default in payment of rent

Once a default was committed by a party, it would make him liable to be evicted from the premises

No illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned orders and judgments passed by both the Courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Admission of the tenant, regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, in agreement to sell exhibited by him, was established

Tenant-respondent had also admitted the default for payment of rent

Both the Courts below had committed serious error

High Court set aside impugned orders and judgments passed by both the Courts below and allowed ejectment petition filed by the petitioner/landlord

Constitutional petition was accepted, in circumstances.

Petitioner/tenant was depositing the rent in favour of predecessor of respondent/ landlord in another case, which was pending in the Court of Rent Controller

Respondent/landlord served notice and subsequently filed application for eviction of petitioner/tenant on ground of default

Rent Controller called report in respect of the other case and the report was that, an amount of Rs.326,934/- was deposited in the name of predecessor of the respondent at the admitted rate of rent

Petitioner claimed errors in the calculation of the rent in the said report

Held, that rent for the period in issue and disclosed in the impugned orders had already been deposited in and if there was any default at all, it was only a technical one

Courts below had drawn their conclusions only because of the incorrect calculation which was also to such extent conceded by respondent

Impugned orders passed under S. 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, were harsh inasmuch as the same struck off the defence without a proper scrutiny of ledgers of the rent that had already been deposited in the case in the name of same landlord

Respondent/ landlord would conveniently recover the amount

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner (landlord) alleged that the rent for the period from January to December 2016 was deposited in Court by respondent (tenant) without first tendering the same directly to him and or without sending the same to him through a money order

Respondent's contention was that the rent for the relevant period tendered by him in January, 2016 was refused by the petitioner on two occasions

In cross-examination, petitioner had specifically denied that respondent had offered the rent to him in January, 2016 or had sent a money order to him

Burden to prove that petitioner had refused to receive the rent from respondent either directly or through money order shifted upon respondent

Regarding the first alleged refusal by the petitioner, respondent had claimed in his affidavit-in-evidence/examination-in-chief that respondent along with a "companion" went to the petitioner in January 2016 to pay the rent, but the petitioner refused to accept the same

Said companion was never examined by respondent to prove his contention and there was no explanation by respondent for not examining his own companion who would have been an important witness to prove his claim

Regarding second refusal by the petitioner, refusal to accept respondent's money order, respondent relied upon a letter issued by Assistant Chief Post Master; it was stated that the payee/addressee "U.H.J" had refused to accept the amount of Rs.10,200 sent to him by respondent

Respondent produced only one part of money order (sender's copy)

Respondent did not produce the actual counterpart of the money order, or even its copy with the endorsement of the concerned postman that the petitioner had refused to accept the money order, nor did he examine the concerned postman and or the author of letter, Assistant Chief Post Master, to verify the contents of said document

Due to this, petitioner did not get opportunity to cross-examine the concerned postman and the Assistant Chief Post Master in order to rebut the respondent's claim

Respondent could not be deemed to have discharged the burden, which was squarely upon him to prove the tendering of rent through money order prior to depositing the same in the Court

Admittedly money order allegedly sent by respondent was in favour of "H.U.I"

As the correct name of the petitioner was admittedly not mentioned in the alleged money order, it could not be deemed or held by any stretch of imagination that the money order was meant for or sent to the petitioner, or that the petitioner had refused to accept the same

Respondent had failed in discharging the burden in order to prove the alleged second refusal by the petitioner.

Statements of account in respect of the amounts deposited by tenant revealed that except for a few deposits all other deposits were made by her after the tenth day of each calendar month

Because of such delay on her part, it was held by the Rent Controller that she had committed default

High Court declined interference in concurrent finding

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Burden of establishing the timely payment of rent is upon the tenant which, if he fails, has to face consequences.

Held, it shall always be the duty of the tenant to pay or at least tender the rent to the landlord and he cannot be allowed to plead that the landlord did not make any effort to collect the rent

Mere fact that a tenant has made it a habit not to pay the rent unless the landlord comes and collects it, does not absolve him from paying the rent every month.

Petitioners/tenants assailed acceptance of eviction petition of landlord by the courts below on the ground of default in payment of rent

Case of landlord was that the tenants had failed to pay the rent for the month of March and April 2004 while the tenants had produced money order receipts in which they themselves had written that they were sending rent for 6 months from May 2004 to October 2004

Validity

Held, prima facie, no illegality existed in the concurrent findings of the two courts below while answering the question of default because legally the tenant could not take an exception to his obligation in payment of the rent in the manner as provided by law or as agreed between the parties

Tenant had failed to make out a case for interference into concurrent findings of two courts below, hence constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be exercised which, otherwise, was not only limited but could only be exercised in exceptional circumstances which were lacking

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Where there is no denial to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the claim is to be accepted once landlord states on oath and same goes un-shattered in cross-examination.

Where tenant had denied the title of landlord and it was established that he was a tenant then he would forfeit his tenancy for having become a trespasser and liable to be ejected forthwith

Tenants had to stand on their own feet and required to discharge onus of proof placed on them

Tenants had denied relationship of landlord and tenant and they were bound to prove their title or locus standi for retaining the premises in question

Tenants had failed to prove their ownership with regard to demised premises through oral or documentary evidence

Agreement to sell did not create any right affecting relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant

Tenant must vacate the premises first and then claim on the basis of agreement to sell

Petitioners had succeeded to make out a case for eviction against the tenants and were entitled for vacant possession of demised premises

Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside and eviction petition was accepted, in circumstances

Respondents were directed to hand over vacant possession of demised premises to the petitioners within a period of two months

Tenants were directed to pay rent of demised premises for the last three years to the landlords

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Contention of tenants were that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties and that the landlord had not produced any tenancy agreement or rent receipt

Validity

Ownership of the house in question was proved by landlord through production of mutation entries and utility bills

Tenants had failed to produce any title document to support their possession over the premises in question, therefore, Rent Controller was competent to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant

Landlord had specifically pleaded that written agreement was not executed due to close relationship with the tenants

Owner of the property, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, was presumed to be of the landlord and the person in possession of the premises was considered as tenant under the law

Tenancy was not necessarily required to be created by a written instrument in express terms rather it could also be oral and implied

Conduct of the tenants was sufficient to hold them contumacious defaulters of rent

Eviction of tenants by the Rent Controller was amply justified and warranted no interference by the High Court

Appeal filed by tenants was dismissed.

Rent Controller while accepting eviction petition on the ground of default in payment of rent directed landlord to approach the civil Court for recovery of arrears of rent and outstanding utility bills

Validity

Rent Controller was empowered to determine rent of premises and pass order for payment of arrears of rent for the period of three years from institution of eviction petition

Tenant was bound to pay utility bills regularly and Rent Controller could pass order for payment of outstanding utility bills

Landlord was not entitled for any enhanced rent rather he should approach the Rent Controller under S.5 of Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959

Landlord was entitled for arrears of rent but not beyond the period of three years from the date of filing of ejectment petition

Civil Court was competent to try cases for recovery of arrears of rent and utility bills but jurisdiction of Rent Controller was not barred under law

Landlord had proved his entitlement for recovery of outstanding arrears of rent and utility bills but he was not entitled for enhanced monthly rent after every three years

Appeal was disposed of, accordingly.

Landlord filed eviction petition on the ground of personal need which was accepted by the Rent Controller but Appellate Court dismissed the same

Validity

Question of personal need and default in payment of rent could not be static

Rejection of an earlier eviction petition would not be a bar under S.14 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959

Constructive res judicata would only apply when there were identical reasons and circumstances after earlier unsuccessful attempt

Subsequent ejectment petition could be filed subject to availability of changed situation and circumstances

No time limit could be fixed for changed circumstances and personal requirement

Personal need of landlord had to be genuine

Tenant had committed default in payment of rent which had provided a fresh cause of action to the landlord to file eviction petition

Landlord had personal bona fide need of demised premises and he was ready to give surety to hand over the shop in question to the tenant if he failed to establish his own business in the same

Personal need of landlord could not be defeated by adversely interpreting evidence to reach another conclusion as had been done by the Appellate Court

If landlord had failed to start his own business in the demised premises then rights of tenant had been protected under S.13 (4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959

Sole statement of landlord was sufficient to prove his bona fide personal need

Landlord had prerogative to choose business of his choice

Mere lack of experience and non-disclosure of nature of business would not disentitle the landlord from claiming ejectment of tenant

Tenant had not deposited tentative rent according to the direction of Rent Controller and his defence should have been struck off

Tenant had committed default in payment of rent and he was liable to be evicted from the demised premises

Tenant had neither claimed for return of pagri amount nor there was any direct evidence with regard to payment of the same

Plea of payment of pagri amount would not make tenancy in perpetuity when it had not been created by a registered instrument

Where amount of pagri had been treated as mutual arrangement between the parties then same had no legal sanctity and it could not be adjusted against rent which had to be paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of tenancy agreement

Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and that of Rent Controller was restored

Tenant was directed to vacate demised premises within one month and pay rent for defaulted period

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Rent Controller dismissed eviction petition only on the ground of maintainability but Appellate Court allowed the same on the ground of default in payment of rent

Validity

Rent Controller had dismissed eviction petition being not maintainable

Appellate Court should have decided appeal on the question decided by the Trial Court and not on the question which was not decided by it

Right of appeal of aggrieved party due to assuming jurisdiction of Trial Court by the Appellate Court had been curtailed

Tenant had been deprived of a right of an appeal as far as the findings of the Appellate Court on default in payment of rent was concerned

Eviction petition was remanded to the Rent Controller for a decision on merits including ground of default

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Contents of document filed with the plaint or ejectment petition should be presumed as correct until and unless satisfactory material or evidence had been produced against the same

Mere sale agreement did not confer any right of ownership

Ejectment order could be executed against a person who had possessed demised premises through tenant

Concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below could be interfered with by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction when there was any material illegality, irregularity, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence on record

Orders passed by the Courts did not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Tenant had to first vacate the premises in case order for his eviction had been passed by the Rent Controller even suit for specific performance with regard to demised premises was pending

Tenant would be entitled for repossession of the demised premises if said suit was decreed

No sufficient cause had been shown on behalf of tenant for not appearing before the Rent Controller

Tenant had not been condemned unheard

Tenant had committed wilful and deliberate default in payment of rent and in contesting the case on merit

Opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the tenant but he himself remained absent

Right of fair trial could be extended to those who surrendered before the Court of law with honesty

Tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Subsequent owner of demised premises was required to send a written intimation by registered post to the tenant intimating him with regard to change of ownership

New landlady had sent written intimation with regard to change of ownership to the tenant through urgent mail service and not by registered post

Landlady had not complied with the requirements of S. 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Tenant had failed to prove that she had paid rent to the previous owner of demised premises after having knowledge of change of ownership

Tenant was bound to pay rent to the changed owner within sixty days after having knowledge of change of ownership which had not been paid

Tenant had committed default in payment of rent and she was liable to be evicted

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

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.

Monthly rent was not tendered by the lessee either within period stipulated in the deed or within 60 days from the date when monthly rent became due and payable

In either case the lessee had committed default in payment of monthly rent.

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Even payment of rent through pay order was not a recognized mode as provided under S. 10 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Tenants should have paid rent through money orders or otherwise deposited the same in the Court

Tenants had failed to pay rent in accordance with law and they were liable to face the consequences

Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court was result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence which was set aside and that of Rent Controller was restored

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below could not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Tenant dispatched rent through money order but same was late for two months due to which landlord did not receive the same

Tenant had committed default, in circumstances

Demised premises was required to the landlord for his son who was jobless

Sole testimony of landlord with regard to choice of his property and personal bona fide need was sufficient for ejectment of tenant

No illegality had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Rent Controller accepted eviction petition on the ground of default and personal need and tenant was directed to deposit defaulted rent

Validity

Tenant did not comply with the order passed by the Rent Controller for deposit of rent before 15th of each month

Delay of single day in deposit of rent without any explanation was sufficient to strike-off defence of tenant

Tenant was provided opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of landlord but he intentionally opted not to cross-examine them on the ground that he had filed constitutional petition before High Court

Tenant was afforded opportunity to produce evidence but he failed and his defence was struck-off

Conduct of tenant remained contumacious and he had been delaying the matter on one or the other pretext

Defence of tenant had rightly been struck-off in circumstances

Section 13 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 did not authorize the Rent Controller for passing final order/ decree against tenant for recovery of defaulted rent

Rent Controller could pass order for deposit of arrears of rent and in case of default could strike-off defence of tenant but had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for recovery of defaulted rent

Landlord could file a suit for recovery of said rent before Court of competent jurisdiction

Impugned judgments passed by the Courts below were set aside to the extent of direction for payment of rent

Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances.

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.

Landlord while claiming default in payment of rent asserted that the tenant was inducted in the premises by previous tenant and that he was a trespasser

Tenant asserted that he came to know about the change of ownership of premises through public notice; that he offered the rent personally which the landlord's attorney refused to receive; that the rent was then tendered through money order which too was refused and that the rent was being deposited in court

Validity

Eviction petition was not maintainable against a trespasser or an illegal occupant

Landlady admitted that no notice regarding change in ownership was ever served upon the tenant however, claimed that two notices requiring vacation of premises were sent

Landlady had been quiet until filing of eviction application and had never attempted to inform the tenant regarding change of ownership

Notices were not proved to be served upon the tenant

Tenant, soon after acquiring knowledge of publication of notice, had offered the rent and on its refusal and denial, deposited the same in miscel-laneous rent case, which deposit was within a reasonable period of acquiring knowledge of the change of ownership

Default, as claimed by landlady, was an engineered one

Eviction application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plea of tenant was that he used to pay accumulated rent for several months to the landlady through rent collector who, despite his repeated requests, did not come to collect the rent for the disputed period and due to such delay rent was paid after six months

Rent Controller ordered for eviction of tenant and Appellate Court allowed the appeal

Validity

If landlord accepted accumulated rent from the tenant periodically or with intervals, it did not mean that he did not desire or expect rent to be paid within time by the tenant as required by law, or that he had waived his right to claim rent within time

Such practice by the landlord in no way overrided or negated the express provisions of law nor could it absolve the tenant from discharging his statutory obligation of paying the rent to the landlord within time under the provisions of relevant laws

Even the court had no power to superimpose any new procedure or method for payment of rent extraneous to the statute

Tenant was bound to pay rent to the landlord within time as required by law through any of the modes prescribed by law; and it was not duty of the landlord to collect rent from the tenant or to remind or chase him for payment of rent; and, payment of accumulated rent even once by a tenant would make him liable to eviction

Tenant had, in the present case, admittedly paid accumulated rent of six months, which showed that there was a clear default on his part

Judgment passed by Appellate Court was set aside and the order passed by Rent Controller for eviction of tenant was restored

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Previous Landlord had an agreement of sale and registered general power of attorney in his favour executed by the original owner

Landlord had even authority to sell and mortgage the demised premises on the basis of registered irrevocable general power of attorney

Tenant had only an agreement of sale the execution of which had been denied by the original owner

Tenant had not filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell to get such denial declared false and got her title perfected through due process of law

Agreement to sell in favour of tenant had been disputed by the original owner of demised premises

Landlord had discharged his burden to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant

Tenancy on service of notice under Section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the tenant was created by operation of law

Landlord was entitled to claim eviction of tenant on the ground of default as well as personal need

Use of phrase "or any other mode" in Section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in favour of new owner did cover transfer of property by registered irrevocable power of attorney duly registered with Registrar of property when such power was coupled with sale agreement showing consideration

When tenant had claimed ownership on the basis of mere sale agreement and he/she had failed to establish the same then default stood proved in favour of landlord

Tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises within thirty days

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Trial Court did not decide the issue of default on the ground that it was not agitated by her counsel at the time of final arguments

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

Validity

Held; it could not be believed that the counsel who filed case for default then filed an application for tentative rent order and after obtaining certified copies of ledger of Nazir filed an application for striking off defense, had failed to agitate ground of default in final arguments

Trial Court was entrusted with the duty of doing justice between the parties, to decide each issue between them in accordance with law on merit on the basis of record and evidence irrespective of arguments by the counsel

In presence of record/evidence, unless the question of default was dropped in writing, Trial Court was not supposed to leave a crucial issue between the parties undecided merely for want of arguments

Findings of Trial Court on the issue of personal bona fide need of landlady were equally perverse and contrary to the record and evidence

Tenant neither in her written statement nor in her affidavit-in-evidence had alleged that two flats of the landlady were lying vacant in the same building, but the Trial Court had relied on such purported statement of tenant

High Court, while maintaining the order of Appellate Court, dismissed the constitutional petition with costs.

Landlord became owner of demised premises through decree of the Court and tenant was intimated with regard to change of ownership and was requested for payment of rent to the new landlord

Tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant

Eviction petition was allowed by the Rent Controller on the ground of default in payment of rent

Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Rent Controller with the direction to decide the same afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and directed the civil Court to amend the decree passed in the civil suit

Contention of tenant was that decree of the Court did not create any title

Validity

Tenants were in possession on the demised premises as tenants and they were not claiming ownership

Notice for change of ownership of demised premises had been received by the tenants

Tenants were bound to tender rent to the new owner of the demised premises within 30 days from the moment they had received the intimation of transfer of ownership by sale, gift, inheritance "or by such other mode"

Notice from new owner to the tenant for change of ownership was enough

Tenants on receiving the said notice refused to tender rent to the new owner on the ground that the decree of Court did not create any title

Decree of Court could also be one of the "such other mode" for transfer of ownership of demised premises

Decree of Court was against previous landlord/owners who were party to the suit in which same was passed

Tenant had no right to question the title of landlord

Tenants on receiving notice of change of ownership were supposed to protect their right as tenant in the demised premises in their possession by tendering rent to the person who had sent them the notice

Tenants had failed to tender rent to the new owner of demised premises

Courts while exercising authority under the law had no jurisdiction to decide or even comment on the title/ownership of the property in possession of tenant

If issue of relationship of landlord and tenant was complex then it should be left for the Civil Court to decide the same

Appellate authority in the present case had remanded the matter to the Rent Controller with the direction to decide the issue of relationship between the tenant and new landlord by re-examining the issue of ownership/title of demised premises already decided by the Civil Court

Judgment of Civil Court could not be examined by the Rent Controller

Appellate Court had exercised powers not vested in it and order for modification/preparation of fresh decree and remand of the case was perverse and void

Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was set aide and order for preparation of fresh decree and remand of rent case were declared null and void

Tenants were directed by the High Court to vacate the demised premises within thirty days

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Tenant deposited partial amount of outstanding rent and adjusted the rest towards the amount he expended on the maintenance of rented premises

Rent Controller and Appellate Court concurrently ordered tenant's eviction

Validity

Tenant had not pleaded the factum of any amount expended on the maintenance of demised premises and had taken the ground for the first time in his memo. of appeal

Any amount which the tenant might have spent unilaterally on the maintenance of demised premises or carrying out any repairs without the express permission of landlord could not be adjusted against the rent

In case demised premises was in need of repair or maintenance and the landlord refused to carry out the same, S. 15, Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 provided a mechanism for repairs to be carried out by a tenant and the amount expended to be deducted from the rent payable to the landlord

Tenant, before carrying out the repairs or maintenance, had neither requested the landlord nor filed application before Rent Controller for permission to carry out repairs and deduct the costs from the rent payable

Constitutional petition was dismissed, accordingly.

Tenant who ran a business in the rented premises as a sole proprietary concern converted the same into a private limited company

Pay orders for rent which were previously sent in the name of the tenant were now sent in the name of the company

Landlord refused to accept such pay orders, where after the company started depositing the rent with the Rent Controller; held, that admittedly the tenant had failed to pay the rent and it was the company which offered the rent to the landlord and on refusal deposited the same with the Rent Controller

Since the company admittedly was not the tenant of the landlord, therefore, the landlord was right in declining to receive the rent and such deposit with the Rent Controller could not save the tenant from the consequences of default in payment of rent in terms of S. 15(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Supreme Court directed the tenant to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord within 30 days

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Landlord was duly cross-examined but no doubt or mala fide in the grounds so raised in the eviction petition were noticed

Genuineness of ground of personal need of landlord could not be doubted and he had discretion to select any of his property for his own business or for the business of his children

Question of personal use of demised premises had been established on record

Courts below had not given due consideration to the contentions of landlord

Bona fide requirement of demised premises by the landlord was doubted without any convincing reasons and sufficient grounds

Trial Court did not order to the tenant to deposit rent which was illegality when relationship of landlord and tenant had not been denied

Landlord had established the grounds of default and personal use of demised premises in a satisfactory manner

Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside

Tenant was directed to vacate the suit premises within a period of two months

Second appeal was allowed according.

Tenant had stopped payment of rent due to alleged non-settlement of rate of rent which earlier was being paid as allegedly it was not being accepted by the landlord

No effort was made to tender the refused rent to the landlord through money order or any other permissible mode

Tenant had rightly been declared as "willful defaulter" in payment of rent

Tenant had no right to remain in possession of rented premises without payment of rent

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Tenant being creation of agreement entered between the landlord and tenant, ownership of property was not an essential condition to create relationship of landlord and tenant

Dispute between the landlord and Evacuee Property Trust was independent of the character of tenancy relationship because tenant would not be beneficiary of such dispute and continued to remain a tenant of the landlord who made him sit in the premises.

If the rent was deposited in court without any delay and without tendering through money order; there would be no default on the part of tenant.

Whenever it became difficult for a tenant to approach the landlord for deposit of rent, he might adopt the alternate mode of tendering rent through money order or deposit the same in court

If the landlord did not receive the rent tendered through money order, the tenant might deposit the same in court in order to avoid his eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent

Tenant was not to establish the refusal of landlord to accept rent, prior to the tendering rent through money order

Refusal or acceptance of rent through money order by landlord

Production of postman as witness was not necessary.

Mere pendency of any dispute with regard to title between landlord and other party would not absolve the tenant to pay rent

Tenant had challenged the title of landlord and admitted the tenancy in the demised premises but refused to acknowledge him as landlord

Tenant had not been restrained by any party from payment of rent to the landlord nor landlord had refused to receive the monthly rent

Tenant even in case of refusal to accept rent by landlord was required to tender the rent through postal money order or to deposit the same in the office of Rent Controller

Tenant was bound to pay rent either to the previous landlord or subsequent transferee

Filing of eviction petition by landlord would amount to a notice

Tenant was supposed to pay rent from the date owner of demised premises became landlord

Non-payment of rent after institution of eviction petition would alone be sufficient for ejectment of tenant

Tenant was contumacious defaulter of rent and his eviction was justified

Question of title had no relevance in the proceedings before the Rent Controller

Tenant had no right to raise any objection with regard to ownership of demised premises

Rent Controller was not competent to determine question of title of demised premises which was job of civil court

Courts below had rightly passed the eviction orders

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.