Eviction petition

Petitioner (the purported buyer and landlady) claiming to have purchased the demised property from respondent No.1 (purported tenant) through agreement to sell

Effect

Brief of the matter was that the respondents "FN" and "FS" were married in 2004, and "FS" had earlier purchased a house which became the "demised premises"; over the years, multiple agreements to sell were executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1 "FN", followed by a civil suit filed by the petitioner (purported buyer and landlady) in 2008 that was decreed in her favour upon conceding statement of respondent No.1 "FN", leading to a registered sale deed

Thereafter, applications under Section 12(2) C.P.C. were filed by "FS" and "PN", resulting in the decree and sale deed being set aside through order dated 25.02.2016, which order was later set aside on 26.08.2020, reviving the earlier decree and sale deed; meanwhile, in 2017 the petitioner (purported buyer and landlady) filed eviction proceedings under Section 15 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, claiming respondent No.1 was her tenant, which were dismissed by the rent controller and the appellate court on the ground that landlord-tenant relationship was not proved, and thereafter, the High Court upheld these concurrent findings

The legal issue before Supreme Court was as to"whether the petitioner had established the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship so as to justify eviction under Section 15 of the 2009 Act"?

Held: The rent controller as well as the appellate court and the High Court concurrently held that neither had the petitioner (the purported buyer and landlord) been able to prove the existence of such the agreement to sell, nor the payment of rent at any material stage by respondent No.1 (purported tenant) to her

The conclusions drawn by three courts below did not suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence and therefore warranted no interference

Eviction could not be sought before the rent controller without establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant

It was emphasized that the relationship of landlord and tenant usually came into existence as a result of a tenancy agreement

One of the most important circumstances from which inference as to the existence of such relationship could be drawn was payment of rent

The fact that no rent was paid by the person in possession of the premises would negate the existence of such relationship

Payment of rent was not just a normal incidence of tenancy but a sine qua non for the relationship of landlord and tenant

To show that respondent No.1 was the petitioner's tenant, the latter had to prove that respondent No.1 either undertook or was bound to pay rent as consideration for the possession or occupation of the demised premises

This could have been done through the production of rent receipts or witnesses deposing as to the payment of rent in their presence to respondent No.1

However, the non-payment of rent in the presence of a rent agreement, oral or written, would not by itself be sufficient to hold that there did not exist such relationship

The existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant could come into existence on execution of a rent agreement

The petitioner (the purported buyer and landlady) did not produce witnesses in whose presence a tenancy agreement with respondent No.1 (purported tenant) was created

There was no reason to interfere with the three concurrent orders / judgments passed by the rent controller, appellate court and the High Court

Leave to appeal was declined and the petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Brief facts of the matter were that the appellant (landlady) filed an eviction petition before the rent tribunal seeking respondent No.3's (tenant) eviction

Rent tribunal allowed eviction and also directed payment of rent arrears

Respondent No.3 (tenant) filed an appeal and appellate court set aside the rent tribunal's findings by holding that the appellant (landlady) had not proved a landlord-tenant relationship

Against the appellate judgment the appellant filed a constitutional petition which was dismissed and the present appeal before the Supreme Court challenged that dismissal

Held: Section 8 of the 2007 Ordinance provided that an existing landlord and tenant as soon as possible, but not later than two years from the date of coming into force the said Ordinance, had to bring the tenancy in conformity with the provisions of the said Ordinance, whereas, Section 9 of the said Ordinance provided inter alia that if a tenancy did not conform with the provisions of the said Ordinance the rent tribunal could not entertain an application under the said Ordinance on behalf of the landlord, unless he had deposited a fine equivalent to ten percent of the annual value of the rent of the premises in the government treasury

Appellant(landlady) and respondent No. 3 (tenant) had until 16.11.2010, to enter the particulars of the tenancy with the rent registrar so as to make it compliant with the requirements of Section 5(2) of the 2007 Ordinance

This requirement, remained unfulfilled till the present day

The vital question that needed to be determined was whether as a result of such non-compliance, the eviction petition was to be dismissed at the alter or whether an opportunity was to be given to the eviction petitioner to cure such defect

When the eviction petition was filed on 09.01.2008, the two-year grace period within which the tenancy agreement was required to be presented before the rent registrar had not lapsed

Omission to present the tenancy agreement before the rent registrar in accordance with Section 5(2) of the 2007 Ordinance within the two-year grace period could neither render the party seeking eviction of a tenant liable to pay the penalty/fine nor could the eviction petition be rejected on this ground

In the present case, the two-year grace period expired on 16.11.2009 and by that time, the appellant's eviction petition had not been decided

It was at this stage that either the rent tribunal could have required the appellant (landlady) to bring the tenancy in conformity with the requirements under Section 5(2) or Respondent No. 3 (tenant) could have taken objection as to the non-compliance with the requirements of the said provisions

Neither was done

Once such omission on the appellant's (landlady's) part was brought to the notice of the High Court, it ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to cure the defect by paying the fine in terms of Section 9(a) of the said Ordinance

Impugned judgment of the High Court was not sustainable on this score

With respect to the tenant/respondent No. 3 claiming to be the owner of the rented property, if and when he would succeed to get a decree from the civil court he could have the same executed by getting the possession of the rented property, however, until then he (tenant) could not arrogate to himself the status of the owner

Appellate court erred by requiring the appellant (landlady) to defend her title in the civil suit and unlawfully made this the basis for setting aside the eviction order passed by rent tribunal

It was deemed not proper to remand the matter to the rent tribunal

Impugned judgment passed by the High Court as well as the judgment passed by the appellate court were set aside and the matter was remanded to the appellate court instead of the rent tribunal to decide Respondent No.3's (tenant) appeal after affording him opportunity to pay the fine contemplated by Section 9(a) of the 2007 Ordinance for not having shown compliance with the requirements of Section 5(2) of the said Ordinance

Present appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Where a tenant has entered into an agreement with the vendor and has purchased the demised premises, for which he has instituted suit for specific performance and he denies the proprietary rights of the landlord on the ground of agreement to sell then he (tenant) is bound to first of all deliver the possession of the premises in question and then to contest his proprietary rights in the property and if ultimately he (tenant) succeeds in his suit for specific performance he can then enforce the same

Moreover, in absence of any evidence in rebuttal of title of landlord, there would be a strong presumption of existence of tenancy between the parties.

In wake of default in payment of monthly rent pursuant to the order of the Rent Controller, the defence of the tenant was struck of and eviction order was passed

Landlord filed constitutional petition as the District Court remanded the matter setting aside the eviction order

Validity

Respondents /tenants were directed to pay the monthly rent by the Rent Controller, though, it had not been specifically mentioned in the said order that what would be the monthly rent, however, the record (contents of the eviction application filed by the landlord as well as conduct of the respondents whereby he himself had requested the court to allow him rent at the rate of Rs.3700/- per month) clearly showed that there was no confusion between the parties regarding the rate of rent as the respondents had been depositing the rent at the rate of Rs. 3700/- per month pursuant to the said rent-depositing order of the Rent Controller

Yet the respondents had failed to pay the monthly rent in court on time on two occasions i.e. the rent for the months of November and December, 2017, was deposited on 30.04.2018 whereas the rent for the months of November and December, 2018, was deposited on 07.12.2018

Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 ('the Ordinance 1959') clearly envisages that if the tenant makes default in payment of rent in compliance of the order through which he is ordered to pay rent his defence shall be struck off

The word "makes default" occurring in S.13(6) of the Ordinance, 1959 is of considerable importance

Said provision prima facie does not show that an oversight default of the tenant would also be of the said serious consequence

Default would mean a wilful default and not one which may have been unavoidable

Even the delay of 03 days in depositing the monthly rent pursuant to the order of court was a wilful default liable to striking of the defence of the tenant

Perusal of the entire evidence available on record showed that the respondents/tenants not only remained negligent in pursuing the case before the Rent Controller but had wilfully defaulted in payment of monthly rent on two occasions

Thus, the mandate of law was that his defence should be struck off resulting in the eviction of the tenants from the demised premises

High Court set-aside impugned remand order passed by the District Court and maintained eviction order passed by the Rent Controller

Constitutional petition , filed by landlord , was allowed.

Perusal of said Waqf-deed revealed that the original owner specifically dedicated premises in question as well as rent derived there from for waqf to be paid to the deserving institution; it was pre-condition in the Waqf-deed that premises-in-question as well as other properties, mentioned therein, would not be subject to further alienation

Thus, a specific clog was imposed in the Waqf-deed on using the premises- in-question for the personal benefit of legal heirs, so S.2(e) of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979, would not come to rescue the petitioner

Waqf means the permanent dedication by a person professing Islam of any property for any purpose recognized by the Muslim as religious, pious or charitable

Waqf is always of permanent character

Even otherwise, the petitioner while appearing as a witness, instead of concurring his version in specific words, deposed statement which left no room to hold that he badly failed to prove his status as landlord of the premises in question; in other words, when the petitioner did not succeed in establishing that he was landlord of the premises in question, he was precluded to move an application, seeking eviction of the respondents under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009

Thus, there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents

Eviction order was thus patently illegal and the appellate Court was fully justified to set-aside the eviction order, passed by Special Judge (Rent), through the impugned judgment, which was unexceptionable

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Landlord/landlady cannot be non-suited on the ground of non-examining himself/herself in support of personal bona fide need and his/her representation through attorney would not be fatal to his/her case.

The petitioner (landlady) filed eviction petition against respondent No.1 under S.15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (SRPO, 1979), on grounds of default, nuisance, and personal bona fide need

The Rent Controller allowed the application filed by the petitioner (landlady), which was later set aside by the appellate court

The petitioner (landlady) mainly relied on her personal bona fide need and stated to have previously lived in her son's house and now sought to reside with her husband in her own house

She (landlady) refused to extend the tenancy to the respondent No.1 (tenant) and demanded vacation of the premises

Held: Once the landlady stepped into the witness box and made a statement that the tenement was required for her personal bona fide need, ejectment proceedings had to follow and it was not up to the tenant to dictate as to how and in what manner, the landlady could use the tenement in question

It was the decision of the landlady as to how she wanted to reside in the subject property even if the same was to her detriment and even if the tenement in question was inhabitable, such an argument would be immaterial

Impugned order was set-aside , however, since the tenement in question was being used for the purposes of a school, therefore, six months' time was granted for vacation of the property in question

Constitutional petition was allowed.

The provision of S.15-A of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was introduced to ensure that ejectment proceedings are not abused and due protection is given to the tenant in cases where the landlord/landlady has misused the provisions of the Ordinance 1979

A restriction of one year has been placed on the owner/landlord in case he wishes to rent out the property to another tenant

This accountability mechanism perfectly balances the low evidentiary threshold placed on the owner/landlord regarding personal need.

The petitioner claimed that her father (purportedly the landlord) had rented out the suit property to the father of respondent No.1 (purportedly the tenant) through an oral agreement in 1988

After predecessor-in-interest of both parties passed away, the respondent allegedly continued as tenant but defaulted on rent, and subsequently, an ex-parte eviction order was passed against him

The respondent challenged the order under S. 12(2), C.P.C., denying any landlord-tenant relationship claiming that he never remained in possession of the property

Respondent's application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was dismissed against which he filed civil revision which was allowed, constraining the petitioner (daughter of the purported landlord) to file the present Constitutional petition

The central issue for adjudication was "whether a relationship of landlord and tenant had been established on record in the proceedings culminating in the eviction order passed by the rent controller"?

Held: In the absence of written agreement the burden fell on the party asserting the relationship to prove the same by adducing compelling and unimpeachable evidence from which the court could infer such relationship on the principle of the preponderance of probabilities

Establishment of relationship in absence of written agreement must be supported by a high threshold of evidence

In the present matter, prima facie, the petitioner (successor-in-interest of purported landlord) had not discharged that burden

No rent agreement, receipt, or any other document were produced in order to establish a landlord-tenant relationship

There can be verbal/oral tenancy also but in order to establish such tenancy an evidence of very high standard is required, from which the facts of tenancy is established on the principle of preponderance of probabilities

The Rent Controller had allowed the application only on the ground that no rebuttal had been offered in response to the tenancy claim

However, respondent No. 1 (purported tenant) in the application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. had denied the existence of relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties and called into question the maintainability of the entire proceedings

Since there was serious dispute regarding relationship between the parties and the petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence in order to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it was imperative for the Rent Controller to decide the application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. as per directions given in the impugned order and then proceed further

No irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order was pointed out

Rent Controller was directed to decide application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. expeditiously

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

It is trite principle of law that when a statute excludes a remedy of appeal, the legislative bar must be strictly observed

It would be contrary to both the legislative intent and judicial discipline to permit constitutional interference in cases where the statute has expressly prohibited any appellate or revisional challenge

Entertaining a writ petition in such a situation would amount to defeating the very purpose of the special rent forum and would undermine the efficiency of rent regulation mechanisms established by law

Allowing constitutional petitions against interim directions would defeat the very objective of the special rent regime, which is designed to ensure expeditious and economic resolution of landlord-tenant disputes

Every procedural direction would then be subject to challenge before the High Court, leading to unnecessary delays and forum shopping.

Respondent (current occupant of subject premises) had admitted that he never informed the landlords/petitioners about the death of his grandfather, who was the original tenant inducted by the petitioners

Moreover, the respondent had himself admitted in his cross-examination that some doctors had been running a clinic in the subject premises/shop; he also admitted that he entered into a partnership in respect of the subject premises/shop with three doctors

Respondent had also admitted that the petitioners/landlords were not aware about the registration of said clinic and he never informed them about it

Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (SRPO, 1979) envisages the various grounds on the basis of which the landlord may seek eviction of the tenant including the ground of default in payment of rent and subletting of any rented premises without the written consent of the landlord

It appeared from the record of the present case that the evidence of the parties adduced before the Rent Controller had not been properly appreciated and discussed in the impugned judgment of the High Court

Impugned judgment was, therefore, set aside and the case was remanded to the High Court to decide it afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and after evaluating the evidence available on the record.

Eviction petitioner (claiming ownership of the demised property on the strength of mutation entry in the Record-of-Rights in his name) moved eviction petition before the Rent Controller

Person-in-possession of the demised property (shop) denied being tenant of the eviction petitioner, yet eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller against him, who preferred appeal against said eviction order

Validity

Evidence produced, in the present case, revealed that the respondent (eviction petitioner) neither produced any independent witness, nor produced any rent receipt to show that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between him and the appellant (person-in-possession)

Since an eviction order could be passed only by the Rent Controller against a tenant or a person who had been put in possession of the rented premises by the tenant, it was essential for the evictor to prove that the person whose eviction was sought was in occupation of the premises in his capacity as a tenant and none other

There were other remedies available under the laws to the owner of the immoveable property to have an unlawful occupant or a trespasser, who was not a tenant, evicted from such property

Thus, in the present case, the existence of some mutation entry in the Record-of-Right in the name of the respondent (eviction petitioner) was of less benefit to him in the eviction proceedings, as he remained unable to establish his status as that of landlord and the status of the appellant as a tenant in the questioned premises (shop-in-question)

In such circumstances, a party was to approach a Court of competent jurisdiction to establish a clear title in his name to enable it to seek eviction or possession accordingly

Rent Controller had no right to place reliance on the mutationentry (in favour of the respondent) in absence of the evidence which could connect the parties with the shop-in-question, in their status of landlord and tenant

High Court set aside the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, consequently the eviction application filed by the respondent stood dismissed

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner/tenant was directed to deposit rent before the High Courtby the 5th day of relevant month, when he approached it (High Court) against eviction ordershaving concurrently been passed against him

Petitioner / tenant did not comply with said rent-depositing order of the High Court

Argument of the petitioner / tenant was that since the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied, neither the Tribunal nor theHigh Court could have directed him to deposit the rent, hence, he could not be non-suited on said ground

Held, that the argument of the petitioner / tenant was misconceived as the order passed in the present proceedings , directing the petitioner to deposit the rent, was neither objected to nor assailed by him before the higher forum, rather he benefitted from the said order, partially, to the extent of retention and protection of possession of the rented premises and in addition, he himself filed application for extension of time for deposit of rent on the ground that due to Eid Holidays, rent could not be deposited, which was dismissed for the reason that Eid-ul-Fitr would be beyond the target date (5th date of relevant month)

Petitioner should have deposited the rent in compliance of the said order from which he could not take such, remarkable volte face

No gross illegality, misappreciation of record or procedural improprietycould be pointed out by the petitioner in the impugned eviction orders having been concurrently passed by the both the Courts below

Constitutional petition filed by the tenant was dismissed , in circumstances.

Plea of the petitioner /tenant was that he was paying rent to the mother of the respondent (ejectment petitioner ) after the demise of respondent's father, the original landlord

Validity

Demand of the rent by the respondent (ejectment petitioner/landowner) was not neutralized by conflicting demand by any other legal heir including the mother of the respondent

Petitioner was under obligation to make payment of rent to the respondent, keeping in view the settled principle of law that once a tenant is always a tenant

Admittedly, the petitioner was not holding the rented premises for any fixed period

Oral tenancy is a tenancy on month to month basis and the petitioner was obligated to vacate the rented premises upon intimation of the landlord

No other person on behalf of father of the respondent had come forward to lay any claim, although the sale deeds, pertaining to the rented premises, in favour of the respondent depicting him exclusive owner thereof were also not disputed ,therefore, denial of the tenancy relationship by the petitioner with the respondent was contumacious

Petition for leave to contest, moved by the petitioner / tenant, was rightly dismissed and ejectment order had been correctly passed by both the Courts below

No gross illegality, misappreciation of record or procedural improprietycould be pointed out by the petitioner in the impugned eviction orders having been concurrently passed by the both the Courts below

Constitutional petition filed by the tenant was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plea of the petitioner /tenant was that he was paying rent to the mother of the respondent (ejectment petitioner) after the demise of respondent's father, the original landlord

Validity

Record revealed that the petitioner had categorically admitted / acknowledged himself having been inducted and given possession of the rented premises as tenant albeit by father of the respondent through an oral tenancy

However, the pleadings ,submitted by the petitioner , showed no explanation as to what he did after demand of the respondent that the rent should be paid directly to him instead of his mother

No receipts had been referred by him (petitioner) to show that he had been continuously paying the rent to the mother of the respondent after the demise of the father of the respondent

Even otherwise, after the demise of the respondent's father the rented premises had devolved upon the respondent being the legal heir, which status of the respondent was neither denied nor disputed by the petitioner

Moreover, the petitioner, as a measure of showing his bona fide, neither approached the Rent Tribunal for deposit of rent to be paid to the lawful landlord/landowner nor any interpleader suit was filed, rather the petitioner had failed to deposit the rent even on the direction of the High Court (in instantproceedings); which indicated the dereliction, with audacity, on part of the petitioner that could not be countenanced

No gross illegality, misappreciation of record or procedural improprietycould be pointed out by the petitioner in the impugned eviction orders having been concurrently passed by the both the Courts below

Constitutional petition filed by the tenant was dismissed , in circumstances.

Petitioner/tenant, who admittedly executed the lease agreement with the respondent, had failed to establish bona fide in raising plea regarding status of respondent as landlord

Definition of the 'landlord' as stipulated in S. 2(d) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, included not only the owner but the one authorized to receive rent of the rented premises

Therefore, any person entitled to claim rent was a landlord

Petitioner, who admittedly, obtained rented premises on lease from the respondent and paid him the rent for four years, had no right to question his authority to lease the rented premises

Where conduct of the tenant was found to be inequitable in denying the status of landlord, he was entitled to the grant of any equitable relief, therefore, the contention of the petitioner/tenant was clearly misconceived

Petitioner/tenant had failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders and judgments passed by both the Courts below warranting interference by the High Court

Constitutional petition filed by the tenant was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, recognized modes of payment only as provided under Ss. 7 & 20 of the said Act, and the petitioner/tenant had annexed nothing to establish payment in any of the said modes

Petitioner/tenant had failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders and judgments passed by both the Courts below warranting interference by the High Court

Constitutional petition filed by the tenant was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Petitioner, in reply to eviction petition filed by the respondent, categorically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties

Validity

Initially onus to prove the relationship was definitely on respondent which he discharged when he appeared himself as a witness and produced registered sale deed

Once that fact was proved by respondent, the onus shifted upon the petitioner to justify and prove his claim that property was mortgaged in his favour and oral agreement to sell was made

Since respondent had not produced any corroborative evidence in support of his application for leave to contest/reply, thus, his stance could not be considered

If the stance of the petitioner qua mortgage was considered to be correct, a perusal of the documents attached with the present petition would show that the copy of the alleged mortgage deed had been appended with this petition (without permission), contents of which showed that it was executed in 2012 and was for a period of two years

Moreover, it had been mentioned in the said deed that petitioner was retaining the possession as a tenant (in order to deceive the court where the said assertion had been mentioned, the words had been defaced by applying a thumb impression thereon)

Moreover the assertion of mortgage had himself been diluted/belied by the petitioner in his suit for specific performance and permanent injunction filed against the vendor, a copy of which had been appended with this petition (again without permission) in which, on one hand, he asserted that the shop in dispute was mortgaged to him and thereafter in a paragraph of the plaint, he asserted that the vendor orally agreed to sell the shop in dispute to the petitioner

Said assertions would demolish the case of the petitioner with regard to subsistence of any mortgage in view of the fact that if the mortgage was in place why would he enter into an oral agreement to sell with the vendor for the sale of the shop in dispute

Said fact clearly showed that if at all there was any mortgage, it was for two years which came to an end in 2014 and was substituted with an alleged oral agreement to sell

Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner (eviction petitioner)claimed that respondent /tenant had acquired possession of the premises from the purported previous owner, who had sold the premises to the petitioner through a sale-deed and purported previous owner at the time of sale told respondent/tenant that from then onwards he (occupant) would be tenant of the petitioner, who acknowledged the same

Eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent (tenant) was concurrently dismissed

Stance of respondent (tenant/occupant) was that he was tenant of someone else who was original owner of the demised-property on the strength of an agreement in writing, drawn on stamp paper and registered with Rent Registrar

Validity

In order to prove the issue as to the existence of landlord and tenant relationship, the petitioner had adopted a certain claim/stance, however, in the entire ejectment petition no name of witness was mentioned in the presence of whom the alleged statements were made by purportedly previous owner or respondent/tenant

Nevertheless, the petitioner later introduced two witnesses of the said fact, who tendered their affidavits but one of the said witnesses had contradicted various parts of the very statement of the petitioner as a witness and failed to answer most of the important questions and kept stating that he had no knowledge as to those questions or facts; he though stated that respondent /tenant had acknowledged the tenancy or payment of the future rent to petitioner but contradicted the statement of petitioner as to the time of the alleged oral acknowledgement as well as number of persons present at that time

Not only the petitioner failed to mention names of witnesses of oral tenancy / acknowledgment by respondent / tenant in his leave and led evidence beyond his pleadings but at the same time the only witness produced by the petitioner had contradicted him, causing further damage to his case

Said witness further admitted that he was nephew of the petitioner and gave clear impression that he had stated as such only on account of that relationship

One other person who was also stated to be present at the material time was not produced for cross-examination, claiming that respondent-side had won him over

It was alleged by the petitioner that rent of two months (in the year 2012) was paid by respondent/tenant but he failed to prove the same through oral or documentary evidence

Falsehood to the extent of oral tenancy between petitioner and respondent/tenant or any acknowledgment of respondent/tenant in said regard was amply clear

On the contrary, the respondent/tenant, in support of his claim, brought on record rent-agreement and got the same duly exhibited, which registered document carried presumption of correctness, and the same was further supported by cogent and confidence inspiring evidence of his two witnesses

Thus, there was nothing available on record to establish that the purported previous owner and respondent/tenant had landlord and tenant relationship

Oral tenancy between the two was pleaded to make out the case that the petitioner had stepped into shoes of said previous owner, however, said oral tenancy could not be proved by producing any receipt or leading independent evidence

No illegality or irregularity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below

Constitutional petition filed by the eviction petitioner was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner (eviction petitioner) on the strength of sale deed and mutation, claimed that previous owner of demised premises, who had rented out the premises to respondent , had sold out the premises to the petitioner

Eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent (tenant) was concurrently dismissed on the basis that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties

Contention of the petitioner was that both the Courts below had ignored S. 2(d) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 ('the Act, 2009') which recognized that any person having ownership of the premises or part thereof or share in joint khata, where the premises was situated could file ejectment petition

Validity

Combined reading of Ss. 13 & 15 of the Act, 2009 as well as definitions of landlord and tenant as per Ss. 2(d) & 2(l) of the Act, 2009 reflects that remedy of eviction under the Act, 2009 was available only when the landlord of the premises could first establish that one sought to be evicted had a relationship of tenant with such landlord

Eviction petition could be maintained upon expiry of tenancy, failure of payment of rent, breach of terms and conditions of tenancy agreement, violation by tenant of obligation under S.13 of the Act, 2009 and unauthorized use of premises or subletting without written consent, while all the grounds given in S.15 of the Act, 2009 required some violation by the tenant

If a person was not a tenant of the ejectment petitioner that meant no ground was available to such person to seek eviction of tenant

Jurisdiction of Rent Tribunals was provided to regulate the relationships of landlords and tenants, to provide a mechanism for settlement of their disputes in an expeditious and cost effective manner and for the matters connected thereto

Said jurisdiction was not available as an alternate to other jurisdictions provided in law or claims of possession through partition or disputed title or for that matter other claims that were required to be resolved by the Civil Courts

No illegality or irregularity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below

Constitutional petition filed by the eviction petitioner was dismissed, in circumstances.

Eviction petitioner had set-up the number of grounds of eviction in relevant paragraph of his eviction-petition in which he had included the ground of requirement of property for personal use also, which (ground) was not available in the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 whereas other grounds of default in payment of rent etc.were dependent on the relationship of landlord and tenant

Petitioner failed to establish said relationship between himself and respondent

Petitioner alleged that respondent was tenant of previous owner but he could not prove the same by leading dependable evidence

No illegality or irregularity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below

Constitutional petition filed by the eviction petitioner was dismissed, in circumstances.

Landlord, after having closed his oral evidence, filed an application for producing further oral evidence and certain additional documents including a DVD allegedly containing voice recording of telephonic conversation between the respondent and the petitioner as well as her husband promising to pay rent ('the voice recording')

Rent Tribunal partially allowed the application

Petitioner (lady/tenant) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to impugn said order to the extent of permission to produce the voice recording

Contention of the petitioner/tenant was that impugned order was passed without any sufficient cause in violation of S.19(3) of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 ('the Act, 2009')

Contention of the respondent/landlord was that S.19(3) or 22(3) were not mandatory provisions of law; while S.34 of the Act 2009 did not oust the principles of fairness and equity to completely preclude the ejectment petitioners from producing documents, which are not appended with the ejectment petition

Validity

Mandatory enactments required strict compliance; an act or thing in non-adherence of the mandatory enactments was invalid

A provision of law which was determined as directory, its substantial compliance was obligatory

When needed, in the interest of justice minor deviations from directory laws could be overlooked provided that there was substantial compliance

It was duty of the Courts to attend to the scheme of Act, 2009 and then to carefully examine the concerned provisions to reach the intent of legislature and to give effect to the same

Provisions of Ss. 19, 22, 25 and 27 of the Act 2009, and keeping in view the object as well as the scheme of the Act, lead to irresistible conclusion that the Legislature has intended that in order to resolve dispute of landlords and tenants in quick, expeditious and cost-effective manner the litigants should provide copies of all documents in their possession that they want to rely upon, at initial stage, by appending them with ejectment petition or leave petition, as the case may be

Time period is provided for almost every step of the proceedings and it was expected from Rent Tribunals to dispose of such cases as expeditiously as possible

Any inadvertent defect in said provisions (Ss. 19, 22, 25 & 27) could be cured exceptionally, when explanation was available to the satisfaction of the Rent Tribunals, which could give permission in compelling needs to safeguard the interest of justice that too after recording reasons for grant of such permission

Litigant to proceeding under the Act, 2009 was not allowed to adduce evidence in non-adherence of said provisions, as a right or matter of course or in routine

Admittedly, entire oral evidence from the respondent's side had been completed and dismissal for request to produce additional oral evidence had attained finality

Aspect as to how the voice recording would have been produced also remained ambiguous

Reason that prevailed with the Rent Tribunal to give permission to produce voice recording was reliance upon Art. 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Whereas in the application moved by the respondent/landlord ground vis-à-vis production of the voice recording set-up in relevant para, did not disclose the date of such recording; and there was no reason given in the application regarding failure to provide the voice recording at initial stage as well as non-compliance of law

Apparently, it also escaped view of the Rent Tribunal that before adverting to the question of admissibility, it was essential to state reasons for departure from the provisions of law or failure in substantial compliance

Respondent had to satisfy the Rent Tribunal as to those grounds on the basis of which he remained unable to produce that evidence or give notice in said regard at the previous stages of trial, which started almost three years ago

It was also incumbent to satisfy the Rent Tribunal as to how it was in interest of equity and fairness to permit the petitioner to produce the particular document at the belated stage

High Court observed that the application filed after about three years of ejectment petition for producing the voice recording lacked sufficient grounds to permit the same

High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Rent Tribunal, to the extent of permission to produce the voice recording

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Tenant sought restoration of possession on the ground that the landlord had not utilized the suit property for personal use

Validity

Landlord had remained successful for ejectment of the tenant on two grounds, the first ground was personal bona fide need and the second ground was default in payment of rent for two consecutive months

Landlord had indeed been living abroad since long, who had never come to Pakistan to take an initiative of practicing medicine, for which the required shop was to be utilized

If this alone was the ground, then the tenant could have been entitled to restoration of possession

Even otherwise, landlord had sold out the suit property

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Held, that S.16 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 ("the Act 2009) conferred exclusive jurisdiction over a case under the Act 2009 and S.22 restricted the right of a respondent to defend himself in a eviction petition unless he obtained leave to contest from the Rent Tribunal within prescribed time

However, the fundamental right embodied in Art.10-A of the Constitution guaranteed that for determination of his civil rights and obligations, a person was entitled to a fair trial and due process

High Court allowed application of petitioner/tenant to set-aside ex-parte proceedings and directed that his application for the grant of leave to contest would be deemed to be pending before the Rent Tribunal

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Record revealed that although the notice was issued to the petitioner/tenant through registered post acknowledgment due, yet there was no mention that the acknowledgement due was received back with endorsement of the petitioner or his refusal recorded by the postal authorities, which was necessary to raise presumption of service under Art. 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order read with S.27 of General Clauses Act, 1897

High Court allowed application of petitioner/tenant to set-aside ex-parte proceedings and directed that his application for the grant of leave to contest would be deemed to be pending before the Rent Tribunal

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Respondent of eviction petition denied existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, but Rent Controller passed a tentative rent order against him

Held, that though in ordinary course, the constitutional jurisdiction should not be exercised against an interlocutory or interim order but when such order, at the face of it, was patently perverse and appeared to be suffering with illegalities, the constitutional jurisdiction could not be abdicated or abridged

High Court could not sit as a silent spectator to perpetuate a void order

High Court set aside impugned tentative rent order and directed the Rent Controller to determine first the relationship between the parties by framing a preliminary issue

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner, in reply to eviction petition filed by the respondent, categorically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties

Validity

Purpose and object of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (Act of 1963) was to control and regulate the matters inter se tenant and landlord

Rent Controller, thus, could not travel beyond the ambit of the Act of 1963

In order to exercise the jurisdiction under the Act of 1963, the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant inter se parties was sine qua non

Once the respondent in eviction petition denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, it became obligatory for Rent Controller to frame preliminary issue to that effect so as to determine the relationship inter se parties at the first instance

If by virtue of deliberation of said issue, ultimately the tenancy was established, the matter would not be further adjudicated and the respondent would be confronted straight away with an ejectment order

High Court set aside impugned tentative rent order and directed the Rent Controller to determine first the relationship between the parties by framing preliminary issue

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Section 15(2)(vii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, requires demonstration of elements such as honesty of purpose and reasonableness

From the statement of landlord/owner for the purpose of eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal bona fide need only an honest intention is to be deduced and there is no other formula to adjudge good and bad faith, for the purpose of eviction on the aforesaid count.

Contention of tenants was that except a letter of attornment nothing was available on record to establish title of the landlord

Validity

When a letter of attornment was issued by previous owner to tenants, it did not lie in the mouth of tenants to challenge the title being transferred

Letter of attornment was a notice from a landlord/owner to a tenant that the property had been sold/transferred directing the tenant not only to pay rent but acknowledge landlord's rights in the property

Attornment occurred when a tenant acknowledged a new owner of the property as his new landlord

By all actions of the tenants, the new owner's rights in the property were acknowledged

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Primary requirement and condition precedent for invoking provision of S. 15(2)(vii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, claiming relief on the ground of personal bona fide need of landlord in good faith is that the landlord should be honest in his approach and sincerity of his purpose should be manifested by irreversible evidence and surrounding circumstances.

Requirement of premises in good faith is not capable of being confined to precise, identical or invariable definition nor any hard and fast rule can be propounded as to encompass all possible eventualities which could arise due to particular facts and circumstances of the case.

Sufficiency of accommodation either for a commercial/ industrial activity or for residential purpose is to be adjudged best by the landlord himself and it may not vary only on case to case basis but also on the basis of nature of business that one intends to establish, an honest idea about future growth of the business and its prospects

Someone may have an idea of establishing humongous business set up and he may or may not be successful in achieving his object and plan but what is important, as a test, is the honesty of intention.

Contention of tenants was that neither the names of family members nor the requirement of spouse or children was mentioned either in the eviction application or in affidavit-in-evidence

Validity

Names of the family members were immaterial for the purpose of seeking eviction on the ground of personal bona fide need as it was only the honest intention of the landlord which was material

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Many ways were available by which a property can be transferred to a beneficiary and one of those ways is by way of gift which may be a written/registered instrument or an oral deposition

Transfer of title by way of an oral gift is recognized under the law including but not limited to Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Such rights, as being lawful, done on the basis of an oral gift cannot be taken away by tenants

Islamic Law recognizes the transfer of title by way of a gift which could be oral as one of the way of transferring the property along with all benefits.

Trust/landlord filed eviction application on the ground of default and personal requirement for the extension of Madarsa and for teachers to provide them some residential accommodation

Eviction application was concurrently allowed on the ground of personal requirement

Contention of tenant was that Trust Deed had expired; that the trustees were not cited as witnesses and that the eviction application was filed by an unauthorized person

Validity

Held, it was immaterial for the tenant as to who were the trustees and how those trustees were being replaced

Such was indoor/internal management of the trustees and trust which had nothing to do with the relationship of landlord and tenant

Resolution in favour of the attorney to initiate legal proceedings was duly filed

Statement on oath of the landlord regarding personal requirement was not seriously shattered in the cross-examination except a suggestion that for the accommodation of teachers' residence flats at the premises could be more suited

Choice of a premises was prerogative of the landlord and this could not be left at the decision/option of the tenant as to which premises was more suited for the landlord

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioner/intervener filed application under O. I, R. 10, C.P.C., claiming to be in possession of the demised premises and paying rent to the actual landlord

Application under O. I, R. 10, C.P.C., was concurrently dismissed

Validity

Landlord had admitted the occupation of petitioner over the demised premises

Administration of justice demand that all parties having interest in the property should be before the Court and heard to defend their rights

Rent Controller had jurisdiction to decide the existence of relationship between the parties

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was a special law and no procedure for impleading necessary parties was provided therein, therefore, the procedure provided in O. I, R. 10, C.P.C. was applicable to such cases

Constitutional petition was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be impleaded as party.

If the tenant asserts that he is no more a tenant as he had purchased the rented premises, even then he has to vacate the premises and file a suit for specific performance of the sale agreement; he would be entitled to possession of the premises in accordance with law only if he succeeds in his suit; till such time the Civil Court passes a decree against the landlord in a suit for specific performance, the landlord would be entitled to recover rent; and, till the time that the tenant is able to establish his claim for specific performance on the basis of a sale agreement, the landlord would continue to enjoy the status of being owner and landlord of the premises, and till such time the relationship between the parties would be regulated by the terms of the tenancy.

On failure of tenant to comply with the tentative rent order his defense was struck off and he was directed to handover possession of the premises

Appellate Court set aside the eviction order by holding that the issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had not been decided by the Rent Controller

Validity

Tenant had failed to establish his alleged title in respect of the demised premises as suit for declaration and specific performance filed by him was dismissed, which dismissal had attained finality

Tenant had no locus standi to question or challenge the title of the landlord in the rent case especially when he himself had admitted in his counter affidavit that he had agreed to purchase the demised premises from the landlord and had paid substantial part of the alleged sale consideration

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

If the tenant asserts that he is no more a tenant as he had purchased the rented premises, even then he has to vacate the premises and file a suit for specific performance of sale agreement; he would be entitled to possession of the premises in accordance with law only if he succeeds in his suit; till the time the civil court passes a decree against the landlord in a suit for specific performance, the landlord would be entitled to recover rent; and, till the time that the tenant is able to establish his claim for specific performance on the basis of sale agreement, the landlord would continue to enjoy the status of being owner and landlord of the premises, and till such time the relations between the parties would be regulated by the terms of the tenancy.

Neither the petitioners had rented out the disputed premises to the respondents (tenants) nor the respondents had ever paid any rent to the petitioners

When the relationship was not proved, the Rent Controller was left with no option but to dismiss the petitions because rest of the questions required complete/detailed inquiry through recording of pro and contra evidence by the court of competent jurisdiction

Failure of respondents to annex affidavits could not be taken as a sole ground for ejectment as the petitioners had to stand on their own legs and no benefit could be awarded to them from the weakness of respondents

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

If the statement made on oath by the landlord is consistent with the averments made by him in his ejectment application and neither is his statement shaken nor is anything brought in evidence to contradict his statement, it would be sufficient for the grant of his ejectment application; all that the landlord was to show that he required the demised premises of a particular tenant for his personal use and the choice was his as to the suitability of the demised premises which he required for his personal use, and that his need is reasonable and bona fide; the landlord has the complete option to choose from any one of the several tenements occupied by the tenants in order to avail of the ground of personal need; and, the landlord himself would determine in what way, subject to law, he wants to utilize his premises after eviction of the tenant.

Tenant assailed order passed by Rent Controller whereby he was directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises

Validity

Eviction application of the landlady showed that she had specifically pleaded that the demised premises was required for her personal use as well as for the personal use of her sister who was unmarried at the relevant time

Claim of landlady could not be dislodged by the tenant

Landlady had successfully discharged her burden in proving her personal need whereafter the burden shifted upon the appellant, but he had failed to discharge the same

Impugned order did not require interference

Appeal was dismissed.

Evidence produced by landlord through his attorney is admissible and is not liable to be rejected or discarded.

Respondent / landlord filed eviction applications in respect of five tenements in use of petitioner/tenant on the ground of default after service of notice under S.18

Rent Controller and Appellate Court concurrently ordered eviction of tenant

Tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant

Validity

Tenant had claimed to have purchased the property but nothing was brought on record in that respect

Tenant had already conceded in his written statement that he was inducted in the premises as tenant, which was a crucial statement

Tenant had admitted in his cross-examination that despite his coming to know about issuance of PT-1 (Property Tax-1) in the name of landlord, he had not initiated any legal proceedings

PT-1 issued to the predecessor of landlord was available along with affidavit-in-evidence

PT-1 might not constitute ownership but it did authorize the one who was found in constructive possession to regulate his possession as required under the law

PT-1 had authorized the landlord to deal with the property as he deemed fit and proper

Notice under S. 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was issued to the tenant to apprise him about the situation as to the change of PT-1 and authority of new landlord

Landlord had stepped into the shoes of previous landlord to whom PT-1 was issued

Impugned judgments did not call for interference

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

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.

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

Burden to prove the tender rent to the landlord and the refusal or avoidance by the landlord in accepting the rent from him laid upon the tenant

In the case in hand, respondent (tenant) had clearly failed in discharging the burden not only to prove the alleged first and second refusals (of accepting rent) by the petitioner (landlord), but also the tendering of rent by him to the petitioner through money order prior to depositing the same with the Rent Controller.

If the statement made on oath by landlord was consistent with the averments made by him in his eviction application and neither was his statement shaken nor anything was brought in evidence to contradict his statement, it would be sufficient for the grant of his eviction petition

All that the landlord had to show was that he required the demised premises of a particular tenant for his personal use and the choice was his as to suitability of the demised premises which he required for his personal use, and that the need was reasonable and bona fide

Landlord had the complete option to choose from any of the several tenements occupied by the tenants in order to avail the ground of personal need

Landlord himself would determine in what way, subject to law, he wanted to utilize his premises after eviction of the tenant.

Held, that rent receipts for different periods produced by respondent showed that in some of them godown was mentioned while the rest were issued in respect of a shop

In cross-examination ,petitioner had admitted that there was no written rent agreement between the parties and he had not filed or produced any document to establish that the demised premises were let out to respondent for the purpose of a godown

Petitioner had failed to discharge the burden to prove his assertion

If there was any such conversion by respondent, petitioner would have been deemed to have acquiesced in such conversion in view of his long and unexplained silence for twenty four years

Case in hand was not only of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence by both the Courts below ,but also a case wherein findings on the questions of default and personal need had been rendered against the settled law by both the Courts below

Constitutional petition was allowed with cost and rent case filed by the petitioner was allowed on said points.

If the statement made on oath by the landlord is consistent with the averments made by him in his ejectment application and neither is his statement shaken nor is anything brought in evidence to contradict his statement, it will be sufficient for the grant of his ejectment application; all that the landlord has to show is that he required the demised premises of a particular tenant for his personal use and the choice is his as to the suitability of the demised premises which he required for his personal use, and that his need is reasonable and bona fide; the landlord has the complete option to choose from any one of the several tenements occupied by the tenants in order to avail of the ground of personal need; and, the landlord himself would determine in what way, subject to law, he wants to utilize his premises after eviction of the tenant.

Landlord had claimed that the demised premises was required for establishment of his son's business, who was dependent on him

Tenants had failed to dislodge the claim of the landlord as in his cross-examination only general and vague questions were put to him that another building was owned by him and he was carrying on business therein

No specific question was put to him with regard to the business he intended to set up in the demised premises for his dependent son

Tenants had failed in discharging the burden to prove that the personal need claimed by landlord was not genuine or bona fide

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.