Application for ejectment of tenant

2017 CLCN 21 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 17(8) & (9)Application for ejectment of tenantDefault in payment of rentTentative rent order, non-compliance ofStriking off right of defenceScope

Tenant was ordered to deposit arrears of rent and future rent until the decision of ejectment petition but he failed and his right of defence was struck off

Validity

If tenant had failed to deposit the rent, Rent Controller was left with no option but to strike off his/her defence and pass direction that landlord/landlady would be put in possession and that too without any further proceedings

Landlord would not have to file an execution petition in such situation for taking possession from the tenant

Rent Controller ordered the tenant to deposit future rent before the 5th of each month but the same was not complied with

No illegality had been committed while passing the impugned order by the Rent Controller

Defence of tenant was rightly struck off by the Rent Controller and his eviction order was passed in accordance with law

No infirmity or jurisdictional defect was pointed out in the impugned order

Rent Controller was not to be deflected by any other collateral proceedings and he was not supposed to look at the plaint in a suit instituted by the tenant

Rent Controller, in circumstances, was to confine himself to see as to whether his order with regard to tentative rent was carried out or not

Appeal being devoid of merits was dismissed, in circumstances.

2017 YLRN 219 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 17Application for ejectment of tenantIntervening party claiming his right of ownership on the basis of agreement to sell

Genuineness or otherwise of the sale agreement and their consequential effect would be independently determined by the court.

2016 YLR 293 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 17Application for ejectment of tenantBona fide personal need of landlordScope

Contention of tenant was that landlady did not appear in person before the Rent Controller and attorney was not authorized to file ejectment petition

Eviction petition was accepted by the Rent Controller

Validity

Landlord might apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant to put him in possession of the rented building if he required it in good faith for his own occupation or for the occupation of any member of his family

Landlady had competently filed the ejectment petition being owner of suit shop

Landlady had sued the tenant through her attorney

No restriction existed that landlord must appear in person to prove his plea of personal bona fide use

Appearance through attorney was as good as that of the principal

Requiring the suit shop by the landlord for his own personal need was to be considered and taken as requirement of the owner

Respondent was real son of the owner of the suit shop and had a legitimate and lawful interest in the premises

Landlady had proved through cogent, convincing and confidence inspiring evidence that premises was required to her for her personal bona fide use

Rent Controller had properly appreciated and analyzed the case evidence in its true perspective

No illegality or irregularity had been committed by the Rent Controller while allowing the eviction petition

Appeal was dismissed in circum-stances.

2016 CLC 7 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 15Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.29Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionApplication for ejectment of tenantEjectment order, execution ofStay of proceedings of ejectment orderScope

Application for suspension of execution proceedings was filed by the applicant-tenant but the same was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Relationship of landlord and tenant was relevant to exercise jurisdiction by the Rent Tribunal

Controversy between the parties with regard to plea of ejectment stood resolved

Landlord was not holding a decree of a civil court

Ejectment order had been passed in favour of landlord by the Rent Tribunal which was to be executed in accordance with law

Provisions of O.XXI, R.29, C.P.C. were not attracted to the facts of the present case

Execution of ejectment order passed by Rent tribunal could not be interfered with in terms of O.XXI, R.29, C.P.C.

Tenant had filed suit for declaration against the landlord wherein facts of ejectment order had been concealed

Wilful and mala fide concealment of such material facts had also disentitled tenant to any relief under the principles of equity

Status quo order passed by the civil judge did not attract the provision of O.XXI, R.29, C.P.C.

Tenant was not entitled to claim stay of execution proceedings of ejectment order

No factual or legal infirmity or jurisdictional error was pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

2014 GBLR 66 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 13 & 15Application for ejectment of tenantDismissal of applicationEjectment application was concurrently dismissed by the Rent Controller, Appellate Authority and by the Chief Court

Counsel for petitioner/tenant, had submitted that he on the instruction of the tenant, would not press petition any further, if the petitioner/tenant was given five months time to vacate the shop in question

Respondent/landlord, in attendance, agreed to give five months' time for vacation of the shop

In view of agreement between the parties, and the statement at Bar of the Counsel for the petitioner, shop would be vacated within five months as agreed upon

Petitioner/tenant was directed to vacate the shop within the stipulated time agreed between the parties, and would hand over the vacant possession of the shop to the respondent/landlord, without any hesitation

Order accordingly.

2014 YLR 2493 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 13Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionApplication for ejectment of tenantDispute with regard to title of propertyRent Controller, jurisdiction ofScope

Contention of tenant was that there was dispute with regard to title of demised premises which could be resolved only by the civil court

Eviction petition was accepted concurrently

Validity

Issue of title was on record between the parties

Civil court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the question of title and fraud, if any, having been perpetrated in securing the sale-deed

Rent Controller was not vested with the power to go into the question of title of property

Rent Controller could assume jurisdiction only in cases where tenancy was admitted

Both the courts below had overstepped their jurisdiction and orders passed by them were not sustainable

Impugned orders had been passed without lawful authority having no legal effect which were set aside

Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.

2014 MLD 1213 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 17 (4) (b) (i) (6)Application for ejectment of tenantBona fide personal need of landladyScope

Contention of tenant was that landlady sought eviction on the ground of personal need for the use of premises by her son

Eviction petition was accepted by the Rent Controller

Validity

Tenancy, terms and conditions of lease deed were in existence between the parties

Rent Controller had rightly held that amount which was lying with the landlady should be paid to the tenant at the time of vacation of premises

Landlord could apply for ejectment of tenant for his personal use and not for any member of family but in the present case landlady intended to convert the premises into restaurant and her son would look after the business on her behalf

Demised premises were required to the landlady for her own use who had prerogative to use the same in any manner she would like

Rights of tenant were protected under S. 17(6) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963

Tenant might apply for an order directing the possession of premises be restored to him if landlord did not occupy the same within one month of date of obtaining its possession

Sufficient safeguard had been provided in the statute against the landlord getting possession of premises with mala fide intention

No infirmity or illegality had been pointed out in the impugned order which was passed in accordance with law

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 YLR 1226 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 15Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionScopeApplication for ejectment of tenantBona fide personal need of landladyScope

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court was extraordinary in nature and was meant for dispensation of justice and to avoid abuse of process of law

Such jurisdiction could not be exercised unless findings of courts below were arbitrary, capricious, perverse and had resulted into miscarriage of justice

Span of litigation in rent cases had been shortened and concurrent findings of facts could be interfered in exceptional circumstances

Landlady, in the present case, had stated that demised premises was required for her residence and there was no reason to discard her words stated on oath

Landlady had no other property

No illegality, irregularity, mis reading or non-reading had been pointed out in the impugned orders

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances

Tenant was directed to vacate the premises in question within a period of 30 days.

2014 YLR 1074 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 15Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 115Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionScopeApplication for ejectment of tenantDefault in payment of rentBona fide personal need of landlordDenial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenantScope

Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) with regard to demised premises was issued in favour of landlords in the year 1963 by the competent Settlement Authority after observing all legal formalities

Demised premises was rented out to the tenant in the year 1977-1978 orally who paid rent up to October, 2005

Relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties

Person who had accepted another as his landlord could not be allowed to challenge title of the same

Nobody could be added, altered or deleted from the proceedings as per whim and wish of a party

Question with regard to appreciation of facts could not be resorted to in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was not a substitute of a revision or a second appeal

Constitutional petition should be entertained if Rent Controller and Appellate Authority had made an order without jurisdiction or there was a lack of jurisdiction or findings were perverse or any provision of law had been violated

Concurrent findings of courts below could not be disturbed unless same were against evidence on record

No illegality, irregularity, infirmity, misreading or non-reading had been pointed out in the impugned orders

Tenant was directed to vacate the premises within sixty days and hand over its peaceful possession to the landlords

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.