Ejectment of tenants

2024 YLR 2779 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.13-A & 13(6)Ejectment of tenantsDenial of relationship of landlord and tenantDeposit of rent before the Rent Controller

Petitioners/ subsequent transferees of property in dispute posing themselves to be landlords filed eviction petitions on the grounds of default, personal need and violation of terms of agreement

During the pendency of eviction petition transferees filed application for deposit of rent in court

Transferees claimed themselves to be landlords on the basis of an unregistered sale deed

Transferors and erstwhile landlord were not impleaded in the ejectment petitions

Contention of the tenants was that no notice was served upon them as to change of ownership

Application for deposit of rent filed by transferees was dismissed by the Rent Controller

Validity

As the unregistered deeds relied upon by the tenants pertaining to the transfer of ownership from their vendors still required recording of evidence because neither the transferors were the party to the ejectment applications nor they had yet been examined by the transferees as witnesses in order to prove their status as transferees and then as landlords by proving that the tenants were served with the notice of change of ownership, as alleged by them, thus, in view of denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant, no order under S.13(6) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, could be passed for directing the tenants to deposit the rent before the Rent Controller.

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

2024 CLC 1966 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.13(2)(ii)(a)Ejectment of tenantsSub-tenant, status of

Demised property was rented out to the tenants with condition of construction, who without permission of landladies further sublet the same to first subletees and the said subletees sublet the same to second subletees

Tenants admitted subletting owing to insufficient amount for construction

Contention of the subletees was that they spent huge amount on construction of premises, thus, they could not be evicted from the premises

Validity

Undisputedly, the second subletees had got no nexus with the ownership of the property and similarly they had never entered into any agreement with the landladies

It was also an admitted fact that the second subletees were in possession of the property being the licensee of first subletees, as such, both the subletees had no nexus or relationship with the landladies and both the subletees had been given the possession of the property by the tenants, thus, any amount spent by first subletees on construction of the building as alleged by them was a matter for settlement between the tenants and both the subletees

Sub-tenant had no independent right of his own and had to stand or fall, sail or sink with the tenants and had no right to claim tenancy or pay rent or file appeal against orders of ejectment, because sub-tenant, who had taken the possession or was put in possession without the consent of landlord, was unauthorized possessor of the property

High Court maintained the eviction order passed by both the courts below and dismissed the constitutional petition accordingly.

2015 CLC 1014 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 13, 13-A, 2(c) & 13(5-A)Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionEjectment of tenantsLandlords filed eviction petitions on the grounds of personal need and reconstruction of the premisesContention of the tenants was that no notice was served upon themPetitions were dismissed by the Rent Controller but the same were accepted by the Appellate CourtValidityLandlords-respondents had purchased the landed property from the previous landlordsMutations exhibited had established proprietary status of landlords-respondents over the premises

Tenants-petitioners had not challenged the ownership of the landlords-respondents and relationship of landlord and tenant was not denied

Notices under S.13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, were issued

Landlord was a person who had the right to receive rent and not necessarily the person who was the owner

Landlords-respondents sent notices for eviction and had obtained approval of structural changes of the premises (shop)

No dispute existed on record between the other tenants of the premises and the landlords with regard to vacation of other shops

Tenants-petitioners had not been able to point out any mala fide on the part of landlord

Nothing was on the record that landlords-respondents wanted to enhance the rate of rent

Under S.13(5) of the Ordinance, penal liability might be imposed when the landlord failed to reconstruct the building in time, such penal provisions were sufficient to safeguard the interest of tenant

Under S.13(5-A), of the Ordinance, the tenants had the right to apply to the Rent Controller for restoration of possession in case landlords failed to reconstruct

Appellate Court handed down detailed findings by discussing each and every issue with reference to the evidence on the record

No prejudice had been shown to have been caused to the tenants-petitioners

Appellate Court had rightly accepted the appeals

Failure to prove the default in payment of rent would not reflect adversely on bona fide personal need

Impugned judgments of the Appellate Court being free from any infirmity were not open to an exception

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

2015 CLC 310 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 15Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionEjectment of tenantsDefault in payment of rentScope

Contention of tenants was that landlady refused to accept the rent and even they sent the same through money order but same was also refused by her

Ejectment petition was accepted concurrently

Validity

Name of the person to whom money order was sent was not mentioned on the reverse of coupon of the same

No amount was mentioned on the coupon and same also did not show endorsement of postman for refusal of landlady

Tenant was bound to produce postman or any other person in evidence to prove the tender by money order that landlady had refused to accept the rent

In the absence of such evidence it could not be said that landlady had refused to accept the money order

Mere filing of receipt of remittance of money order could not be treated as authentic document

Tenant deposited rent with the Rent Controller without offering the same to the landlady, in circumstances, which would be treated as default in payment of rent on his part

Findings of the courts below did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity

Constitutional petition in such matters not to be entertained until and unless there was jurisdictional error committed by the courts below or exercise of jurisdiction was perverse or was in arbitrary manner and was based on ignorance of the material available on record or violation of any provision of law

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

2014 YLR 161 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 15Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionEjectment of tenants

Contention of landlords was that premises was required for their personal bona fide need whereas tenant contended that he had purchased some shares in the demised premises and had become co-owner

Ejectment petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller but same was accepted by the Appellate Court

Validity

Tenant had purchased shares of some landlords in the demised premises which had been admitted and he had become co-owner

Privity of landlord and tenant had come to an end

Status of tenant had ceased and he could not be ejected till partition of joint property

Constitutional petition was accepted and impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and order of Rent Controller was restored.