Relationship of landlord and tenant

Supreme Court declined to interfere in orders passed by Lower Appellate Court and High Court, as there was no illegality or irregularity

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

Despite stance taken by petitioners/tenants to have purchased suit property by their father, not a single authentic document was placed on record whereas purchase of suit house by respondents/landlords remained unrebutted

Payment of monthly rent was also established and through recording of evidence respondents/landlords duly proved their case

Constitutional petition was neither alternate to right of appeal nor revision, as provided under law

High Court could only rectify and amend a wrong order or a mistaken conclusion of Lower Appellate Court while exercising, its Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Payment and receipt of rent is sine qua non for establishing relationship of tenancy between the parties.

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.

Two agreements to sell were produced by the tenant/respondent; only one agreement was admitted by the landlord/petitioner

Ejectment petition was concurrently dismissed declaring that through admitted agreement parties had agreed to terminate their previous relationship of landlord and tenant; and to sell suit property to the tenant

Held, that although one agreement sell was admitted by both parties , however, the other agreement sell was not admitted by the executor/petitioner or not proved by the claimant/respondent; therefore, no authenticity could be given to said document

No such word or sentence had been used in said admitted agreement that with execution of said document ,relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had come to an end

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 / landlord was aggrieved of non-deposit of rent by respondent/tenant on his denial of relationship of landlord and tenant

Validity

Respondent could not deny that his entry into rented premises was only on the basis of rent agreement

Once a tenant was always a tenant

Such doctrine was based on the principle that once one had entered into premises as a tenant, he could not be heard to deny lessor's title

Allotment of plot in question was cancelled but respondent did not lose his status as a tenant

Such cancellation did not ipso facto bring to an end the tenancy created by rent agreement nor it created a tenancy with Capital Development Authority

No rent agreement between respondent and Capital Development Authority

No agreement as respondent was using rented premises for a commercial purpose which was not the purpose for which plot in question, in which rented premises were situated, was allotted by Capital Development Authority

Respondent was estopped by Art. 115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 from disputing title of petitioner so long as he was in possession of rented premises

Denial of respondent of a relationship of landlord and tenant with petitioner based on his objection to title of petitioner could not have been looked into by Rent Controller

Rent Controller committed jurisdictional irregularity by holding that order for deposit of tentative rent could not be passed where there was denial of relationship of landlord and tenant

High Court directed Rent Controller to give decision on consequences of respondent's failure to show compliance with direction given to him for deposit of future rent

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Payment of rent is a sine qua non for the relationship of landlord and tenant.

Landlord had not mentioned in his petition as to when the possession of disputed house was handed over to the respondent as a tenant

Landlord had admitted in his cross-examination that no tenancy agreement was signed between him and tenant, however, stated that it might be with his father

Tenant in his statement had produced a deed whereby it was alleged by him that his father had purchased the disputed house

Landlord had to prove the existence of relationship of tenant and landlord through cogent, reliable and convincing evidence

Not a single evidence was available on record which could show that the landlord had ever received monthly rent from the tenant

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

Constitutional petition of landlord was dismissed.

When issue regarding the existence of relationship of tenant and landlord is framed, the landlord is required to prove the same and in case of failure, his application is to be turned down.

Petitioners had admitted that they had filed the ejectment petition on the basis of oral agreement for which there was no knowledge to the petitioners that when it was settled between their predecessor-in-interest and the respondent's predecessor-in-interest

Even time and year was not specifically known to the petitioners

Even there was no such evidence from which it could be believed that the respondents had paid rent to the petitioners at any time

Petitioners had failed to justify as to why after the commencement of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, they could not ask the respondents/tenants for written agreement of tenancy

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Receiving of rent and payment of rent are sine qua non for establishing the relationship of tenancy between the parties and in a case where the relationship itself is under question then, it becomes further necessary and imperative to prove the existence of relationship between the parties through evidence and for the very purpose the factum of payment of rent by the tenant to landlord is pivotal to prove or disprove the claim of tenancy and relief sought.

Where the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant is specifically agitated the question before Rent Tribunal is only to see the status of the parties

Obligatory upon a person claiming himself to be landlord of the premises to establish the evidence that the other person is occupying the premises in the capacity of a tenant and none other and that such tenant is also paying rent against the tenancy of the demised premises, otherwise he would be deemed to have failed to establish his claim and would not be entitled to seek eviction of such a tenant under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009.

Petitioner/tenant denied relationship of landlord and tenant on the plea that his suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was pending decision

Validity

Proceedings in suit for specific performance of agreement to sell were separate and could not be interlinked with proceedings conducted in rent matter, which had its own merit

If owner/landlord of a property was in personal need of his (rented) property, he/she could not be stand for along period until the decision of another subsequent separate proceedings

If petitioner / tenant would succeed in obtaining decree in his favour in suit for specific performance, he could agitate issue of restoration of possession of demised premises

Benefit of agreement to sell could not be extended to him until it stood proved by Court of competent jurisdiction

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent eviction order passed by Rent Tribunal and Lower Appellate Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Landlord had claimed ownership of property on the basis of an unregistered lease deed which was required to be registered being a compulsorily registrable document

Landlord could not establish that his predecessor enjoyed a good and transferable title over the suit property

Trial Court had relied upon that part of the deposition of tenant wherein he had stated that he had purchased the property from the father of landlord and had never remained his tenant

Trial Court had made it a great point in favour of the landlord, however, no one could establish his right solely on the ground of weakness of the case of his opponent

Deposition of tenant revealed that it could be said that he had taken possession of the property from the father of landlord but not in the capacity of tenant

Tenant had never paid rent to the landlord and there was no proof of payment of rent

Possession of the premises was with the tenant since long and the landlord could not establish the right of ownership or possession

No misreading or non-reading of evidence was available on record

Revision application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner (landlady) assailed orders passed by courts below whereby it was held that the relationship of tenancy did not exist between the parties

Contention of tenant was that he was the tenant of petitioner's husband's elder brother who had earlier filed an ejectment petition, which was dismissed and that he was occupying the shop other than the one mentioned in the petition

Validity

Tenant appeared to approbate and re-reprobate as he had in a way conceded to the case of petitioner who had deposed that previously her late husband was managing the affairs of the demised premises and thereafter it was being managed by her in-laws

Tenant had to prove that previous owner was still claiming right and interest in the property and as such, he could not accept the change of title being tenant of the subsequent landlord

No such evidence was available that the previous landlord had ever disputed to the change of landlord

If tenant was not admitting the petitioner as his landlord, he was required to file inter pleader proceedings to avoid default in payment of monthly rent

Judgments of courts below were set aside and the eviction application was allowed, in circumstances.

Tenant, had not denied the title of the landlord in respect of premises in question, but denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and had nothing to say regarding his status as an occupant of the premises

Tenant had made no attempt to claim the ownership of the premises, nor did he allege that there was any suit pending for claiming any right to the premises in question

Bald assertion of tenant denying relationship of landlord and tenant and signatures on the tenancy agreement, would only lead to an inference that entire defence was set up in order to prolong the agony of the landlord

He who asserted must prove

Party would bear a burden of proof of every matter, which was an essential part of the party's cause of action

Generally, there were exceptions, but plaintiff or applicant must establish the existence of all the pre-conditions and other facts entitling him to the order he had sought

Once the burden had been determined, that would not shift during the course of trial

When the defence was set up by the tenant, he must also bear a burden of adducing evidence in order to bring home his good faith, and cogency of his defence

As a rule, there was an estoppel against the tenant in such matters

Underlying principle of estoppel in that a tenant who might not have got possession, but for the tenancy admitting the right of landlord, must not be permitted to put his landlord in an inequitable situation by taking undue advantage of the possession, that he got, and the probable defect in the title of his landlord

Positive obligation was on the tenant to spell out clearly the contours of his defence, the basis for it and the circumstances underlying it

Mere denial, would not do

Corresponding duty on the Rent Tribunal was to see that the denial was not based on frivolity, and was not a contraption

Denial of relationship by tenant, in the present case, was a sham and a subterfuge

To deny that fact would lead to unconscionable results, and the owner of the premises would be left into the prospect of another long-drawn litigation process in order to reclaim possession of his own property

Constitutional petition was accepted and consequently the ejectment petition also stood accepted with the result that tenant should vacate the premises within a period of two months.

Contention of tenant was that there was agreement to sell between the parties and he was in possession on the demised premises being owner and had filed suit for specific performance

Eviction petition was accepted concurrently

Validity

No one could remain in occupation of rental premises on the ground that he had instituted a suit for specific performance or declaration

Tenant had not paid any rent which was sufficient reason for his eviction from the premises

Tenancy agreement had to be in writing

Section 5 of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 did not take the matter out of jurisdiction of Rent Controller if rent agreement was not in writing

Discretionary power not to be exercised in favour of a person who had not come to the court with clean hands

One who had sought equity must come with clean hands

High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution could not interfere with the findings of Rent Controller merely on the ground that more than one view was possible and weigh the evidence led before the Rent Controller

Finding of facts could not be challenged on the ground that relevant material and evidence adduced before the Rent Controller was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the findings recorded by the Rent Controller

Such a Tribunal was not bound by strict rules of evidence

High Court could interfere with the findings of Rent Controller if same were perverse or irrational or arrived at by ignoring materials on record or arbitrary or contrary to the principles of natural justice

No perversity, irrationality or violation of principles of natural justice were pointed out in the proceedings recorded by the courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Rent Controller was to direct the parties to get their title cleared from civil court.

Tenant was estopped from denying the title of the person from whom he obtained the immovable property on rent.

Tenant contended that court was bound to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant before making order of eviction

Validity

Tenant having not disputed arrears of rent or withdrawal of rent by landlord, could not seek decision on question of relationship

Defence of tenant was struck off for non-compliance of S.16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Judgments of court below did not suffer from any illegality

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Person even if he was not owner of a property could be deemed to be a landlord, and similarly he may be owner but not a landlord

Courts ought to look into relationship of landlord and tenant and should not go into the disputed questions of title as the same was the job of the civil court and not that of the Rent Controller.