Ejectment

Such order would not absolve the Tribunal of its duty to satisfy itself about the veracity of the case of the landlord and after applying its judicious mind it would pass the final order and not to allow the ejectment petition at the outset on the ground that since the application for leave to contest was rejected, hence, under S.22(6) of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 it was obligated to pass an eviction order.

Determination of rent/order of payment of rent or outstanding utility bills could only be made by the Rent Tribunal while granting the application for leave to contest and not otherwise.

Default in payment of rent and utility bills, misuse of property, violation of the terms/conditions of tenancy agreement and expiry of tenancy

Application for leave to contest was rejected and ejectment was ordered subject to return of security amount

Separate order regarding recovery of arrears of rent/utility bills issued on the same date

Petitioner/landlord contended that Rent Tribunal had no occasion to have framed issues when the eviction of the respondent was ordered; that Rent Tribunal had to straightaway order for the recovery of arrears of rent and outstanding bills; and that the Tribunal's order for ejectment subject to return of security amount was illegal

Validity

Respondent/tenant, upon service of notice, had to file application seeking leave to contest within stipulated time

Respondent could defend the application only if the leave to contest was granted

If the Tribunal accepted the application for leave to contest, the same would be treated as written reply; and in case such application was refused, the Tribunal was bound to pass a final order

Ejectment was ordered on ground of expiry of period of tenancy and not on the ground of default

Tribunal having refused the respondent's application for leave to contest and passed a final order of ejectment on the ground of expiry of tenancy (and not as default), it had no jurisdiction, especially through an interim order to frame issues or to further adjudicate upon the matter, especially so when there was no rebuttal to the contents of the ejectment petition

Constitutional petition was partially allowed setting aside the interim order of the Tribunal qua framing of issues.

Policy Governing Allotment of Residential Accommodation (Meant for Secretariat Employees) at Karachi by Estate Office, SGA&CD dated 22-05-1999, Paras. 7, 13, 24 & 26

General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 24-A

Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A

Government residence

Unlawful occupation

Ejectment

Petitioners were residents of government residential properties and were aggrieved of ejectment by Provincial Government

Petitioners contended that their status as residents was disputed and Provincial Government ejected them without determining their status as unauthorized occupants

Validity

No determination had ever taken place even in manner considered applicable to declare occupation of petitioners of respective properties as unlawful

Any notice served to petitioners in manner delineated for ejectment was premature

Competent authority ought to have initiated and concluded proceedings in accordance with law to determine occupation rights of petitioners prior to serving them with eviction notices.

Pagri had to be paid by the landlord-respondent to the tenant-petitioner at the time of handing over the vacant possession of the shop.

Ground of default in payment of rent for six (6) months and twenty (20) days after expiry of period of unregistered lease agreement requiring tenant to pay advance rent in lump sum on 11 months basis

Tenant's plea while denying such default was that lease agreement, being unregistered would not create any right, title or interest in demised premises

Validity

Tenant after expiry of period of such agreement had become a statutory tenant, thus, terms and conditions thereof relating to rate of rent, time and mode of its payment would remain alive

Tenant had not denied payment of advance rent for each 11 months in lump sum as per such agreement and past practice

Tenant had denied default on first date of hearing by filing written statement

Tenant had paid rent for disputed period through two pay orders with delay exceeding six months, thus, second proviso to S.15(2)(ii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 would not apply to the present case

Landlord had not sought enforcement of any right, title or interest on the basis of such unregistered agreement, but had sought eviction of tenant from demised premises

Right of ejectment for being statutory could be enforced in respect of terms specified in lease agreement

Relief of ejectment not being in nature of right or interest enforceable in accordance with lease deed

Unregistered document could be used and received for collateral purposes

Non-registration of lease agreement would not be relevant for disposal of appeal

Ejectment petition was accepted in circumstances.

Dismissal of application under S.12(2), C.P.C. by Rent Tribunal for non-existence of element of fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining ejectment order

Order of dismissal of application under S.12(2), C.P.C. challenged in constitutional petition instead of appeal

Maintainability

Petitioner was obliged to avail remedy of appeal against ejectment order, specifically provided in Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007

Ejectment order was not alleged to have been procured by fraud and misrepresen-tation, in the application under S.12(2), C.P.C.

Rent Tribunal had rightly exercised jurisdiction to strike-off defence of petitioner and pass ejectment order for his failure to file leave application within time

Constitutional petition would not be maintainable in case of availability of an adequate and efficacious remedy provided by any law

Petitioner had not availed efficacious and adequate statutory remedy of appeal available against ejectment order, but had sought remedy by filing application under S.12(2), C.P.C. without making out case thereunder

High Court dismissed constitutional petition, for being not maintainable in circumstances.

Tenant (petitioner) assailed order of Rent Controller, whereby, his defence was struck off due to non-production of evidence

Validity

Tenant sought repeated adjournments for cross-examination of witnesses and adopted dilatory tactics such as change of counsel and filing of miscellaneous applications

Tenant, despite numerous opportunities to produce evidence and in spite of two last warnings by the Rent Controller, did not produce evidence and the Rent Controller struck off defence of the tenant for non-production of evidence

"Reasonable opportunities" were, therefore, allowed to the tenant in terms of the provisions of section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and the Rent Controller could not wait for an indefinite period for the tenant to produce evidence more specifically when dispute between the landlord and tenant was required to be settled not only quickly but also in accordance with guidelines provided by the Supreme Court for curtailing the delay in the disposal of such cases

High Court observed that although the Rent Controller was not bound to follow the C.P.C., yet he substantially complied with the provisions of O.XVII, Rule 3 of the C.P.C. as the tenant despite warnings and a fine, did not produce evidence

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant contending that respondent/landlord was not the sole owner of the rented house

Validity

Application of the tenant to deposit the rent in the court established that he was in occupation of the house in question as tenant

Dower deed in favour of the landlady/respondent by her husband showed that she was owner of the house

Petitioner was correctly held to be tenant

Petition was dismissed accordingly.

Tenant remains a tenant even if he succeeds in procuring an agreement to sell with his landlord till the time that agreement is resulted into a final document of title

Mere agreement to sell does not create any right or title

After execution of agreement to sell by landlord, tenant does not become owner of the property.

Intervener filed application under S.12(2), C.P.C. challenging ejectment order, which application was dismissed by the Rent Controller and upheld by Appellate Court

After death of the intervener, his legal heirs filed fresh application under S.12(2), C.P.C.

Rent Controller dismissed said application being barred by law on the ground that in case of same subject-matter, against same decree, earlier application having finally been dismissed and proceedings had attained finality

Appellate Court, however, accepted said application on the ground that application was decided by the Rent Controller without framing issues and recording evidence of the parties and remanded the case for doing the needful

Validity

Order dismissing application filed under S.12(2), C.P.C., earlier passed having attained finality, same could not be re-opened subsequently by the successors-in-interest of the intervener

Decision of dismissal of previously filed application under S.12(2), C.P.C. by the intervener, and its maintainability was properly adjudged by the Rent Controller and subsequently the same was also dismissed against which a revision petition was filed, which was also dismissed

Orders passed by the court in the first round of litigation were final against the intervener and for all times to come against his successors-in-interest and could not be re-opened in the subsequent proceedings on the same grounds

Appellate Court had proceeded against the law while accepting appeal and remanding the case to the court below for further proceedings, which was not maintainable

Decision of Appellate Court below was declared illegal and of no legal consequence

Judgment of Appellate Court was set aside and that of the Rent Controller restored, in circumstances.

Ejectment application had concurrently been accepted by the Rent Controller and Appellate Court and tenant was ordered to be ejected

Said judgment was put to execution wherein the objector filed objection petition, which was summarily dismissed by the Executing Court and dismissal order was also upheld in appeal

No doubt, in case of a genuine objection regarding title over any interest, the Executing Court had the powers to hold an enquiry, but when on the face of record the objection was found based on mala fide and to deprive the decree-holder from fruits of the decree, the Executing Court could competently/summarily dismiss the objection petition.

Landlord completed his evidence in proof of his claim and tenant was called upon to produce his evidence; but he failed to produce the same despite about forty opportunities were given to him

Rent Controller closed the right of the tenant/petitioner to produce evidence and fixed case for final arguments

Validity

High Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution had to see the competency of the constitutional petition as well as the pointing out of some illegality in the order challenged in the petition

Counsel for the petitioner had not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned order, whereby the right to produce evidence by the petitioner was closed by the Rent Controller after giving numerous opportunities to him

Order of Rent Controller, could not be interfered with, in circumstances.

Plea of tenant that his suit for specific performance of sale agreement executed by landlady regarding demised premises was pending

Validity

Tenant had undertaken before Appellate Court to hand over possession of demised premises within one month's time

Tenant had not been paying rent to widowed-landlady

Neither any stay order was in field nor was there any restraint order passed in such suit to stop ejectment proceedings

No body would become owner of property merely by entering into sale agreement

Tenant would continue to be tenant till transfer of title in his favour under Transfer of Property Act, 1882

High Court dismissed constitutional petition of tenant in circumstances.

Person entering upon such property as tenant under one of its co-sharers continues to be a tenant till such time either tenancy is terminated by an express agreement between the landlord and tenant or he surrenders possession thereof

-Tenant purchasing share from one co-sharer during subsistence of tenancy does not cease to be a tenant, particularly where the ejectment proceedings were already initiated against a tenant but who, with an object to circumvent such proceedings, acquired a share in property from a co-owner.

Employee who was on probation for one year, his services were terminated on the last date of his probation on the ground that his performance during probationary period was not satisfactory

Employee had challenged termination of his service contending that show cause notice which was an essential legal requirement was not issued to him before termination of his service

Services of employees having been terminated simply on ground that during probationary period his performance was not satisfactory, termination of employee would not fall within mischief of misconduct which required show-cause notice

Services of employee could have been terminated any time without assigning any reason during his probationary period and satisfaction of employer always would remain the ultimate consideration for his retention in service beyond the period of probation

Performance of employee being not satisfactory during probationary period, his services could be terminated without notice.

Not obligatory on Rent Controller that whenever tenant raised plea of title, he should refer parties to the Civil Court.

Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that exemption under Notification No. VIII(3)501/75, dated 15-3-1981 applies only to those properties that are owned and occupied by Port Trust and not to those that are perpetually leased out by Port Trust to the lessees who are entitled to recover rent from sub-lessees.

Plea that delay in deposit of rent was due to bona fide impression that on account of annual vacations of civil Courts rent could not be deposited, not sustained

During past years rent was deposited by tenant in the same month and for deposit in Treasury permission of Rent Controller was neither necessary nor it was obtained in the past before making such deposits

Delay having constituted default, ejectment order restored.

Plea that High Court was not competent in second appeal to upset concurrent findings of two Courts below to the effect that relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased to exist between parties on account of sale of property, repelled

Proposition that on transfer of ownership rights by a landlord during pendency of ejectment application, the application would ipso facto become infructuous, was not supported by any provision or principle of law

Person upon whom ownership rights devolved by virtue of transfer, could be impleaded as a party to continue proceedings.

Leave to appeal granted to consider contentions that consent order passed in Distress Warrant proceedings allowing payment of arrears of rent by installments cannot be construed as condo nation of default by tenant or waiver of right of eviction on part of landlord when no plea of waiver was specifically taken by tenant in his written statement, although waiver is a question of fact and that tenant could not be allowed to take inconsistent pleas denying relationship of landlord and tenant between parties and at the same time pleading that he had committed no default in payment of rent.

Ejectment ordered ex parte-Application for setting aside ex parte order rejected on ground that no sufficient cause was made out for grant of request

On appeal District Court while affirming that no case was made out for setting aside ex parte order, found that appellant had failed to make out a case for respondent's ejectrnent in ex parte evidence and set aside original order of ejectment

Appellant's Constitutional petition against appellate order also failed

Leave to appeal was granted to examine plea that District Judge have erred in law in allowing appeal against order of ejectment when respondent had only challenged subsequent order whereby Rent Controller had found that no ground for setting aside ex parte order was made out and that appeal against original order of ejectment having already become time-barred and in fact no appeal /a

High Court holding that landlord had failed to prove that premises which he got vacated were no longer suitable for his need

Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that the question that the landlord had already secured possession of another premises, was not raised in written statement by the tenant and as such landlord was seriously prejudiced inasmuch as he had no opportunity to show that even after having acquired possession of another premises he still bona fide required premises in dispute according to his need.

Plea raised that ejectment proceedings were not brought against another tenant who was occupying a portion of same premises

Landlady explaining that said tenant had agreed to vacate portion in his possession as soon as petitioners did so

Petitioners agreeing to eviction after possession was obtained from said other tenant and portion in his occupation was demolished

With this consent statement and on joint prayer of parties, petitions converted into appeals and disposed of in terms of consent statement.

View affirmed by High Court-Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent finding of fact which was rooted in evidence and refused leave to appeal.

Statutory tenant-Plea that landlord had made no demand for rent and as such notice given by him was not valid in law, repelled

Petitioners being statutory tenants of landlord and admitting rate of rent having neither tendered rent to him or to Settlement Department nor having deposited same in Court after receipt of notice, could not get benefit of fact that he demand of refit was made and, therefore, notice was not proper

Order of ejectment upheld

Leave to appeal refused.

No evidence led to show whether rent was payable in advance or within a specified period-Ejectment application having been filed within sixty days of rent becoming due, held, respondent could not be said to have made a default

Order setting aside ejectment in appeal, upheld in writ jurisdiction and Supreme Court refused to interfere.

Supreme Court in appeal, while affirming order of ejectment, despite lapse of six months since order of ejectment were revised by High Court, allowed four months more for this purpose because of difficulty in arranging suitable alternate accommodation, subject to condition that tenant surrenders possession of premises voluntarily on expiry of said period and would continue to pay rent.

Tenant running school in premises in dispute- -Ejectment ordered on ground that landlord needed premises for running a school himself

Leave to appeal granted to consider inter alia whether a landlord can get a building vacated under clause (a)(i) of subsection (3) of S. 13 for establishing a school and not for his own residence.

Since rent was being regularly deposited by tenant in earlier proceedings and amount was being withdrawn by wife of landlord who was also a co-applicant in subsequent ejectment proceedings, held, appellant-tenant could not be condemned for having been guilty of disobedience of order of Rent Controller so as to entail penalty of his eviction from demised premises

Eviction

Plea that landlord required premises for repairs and it was not necessary for him to obtain possession of whole building, repelled

Word "reconstruction" did not imply a complete demolishing of existing building and construction of new building in its place

Where change of substantial character in existing building was being effected, case would fall within purview of word "reconstruction" and where structural changes were to be made in order to complete proposed work, such work could not be termed or characterized as mere repairs

Claim of landlord requiring premises for reconstruction having been established, appeal dismissed with costs.-[Words and phrases].

Original tenant not keeping tenancy to himself, making R a partner in tenancy without associating landlord or obtaining his consent and himself proceeding abroad

Tender of rent by R could be lawfully refused by landlord

Order of ejectment on ground of default and subletting, held, unexceptionable

Leave to appeal refused.

Leave to appeal refused.

Appellate authority relying upon material which was not before Rent Controller and on certain facts with which landlord was not confronted

There being no pleadings with regard to other two houses to the effect that they were suitable for needs of landlord nor explanation of landlord obtained on this aspect during cross-examination, appellate authority misdirected itself in law in relying upon said material

High Court, in circumstances could have justifiably interfered in this matter in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction

Order of High Court as well as that of appellate authority set aside

Case remanded for decision afresh, after taking furt

Tenant of rented land and superstructure thereon without any machinery was tenant at most of either rented land or non-residential building which comes within ambit of Ordinance (VI of 1959) falling within jurisdiction of Rent Controller

Ejectment order upheld.

Legal representatives of a deceased landlord on devolution of interest of deceased, held, could not in same proceedings prosecute claim for ejectment on ground of personal use of deceased landlord as such cause of action being personal in nature would not survive to legal representatives of deceased landlord.

Ejectment ordered by Rent Controller on ground of default in payment of rent while tenant's amount as advance rent was still lying in deposit with landlord

Tenant not a habitual defaulter-Order of ejectment set aside in second appeal

Fit case where discretion allowed by S. 13(2) should have been exercised in favour of tenant

High Court, held, rightly exercised discretion in favour of tenant

Leave to appeal reused.

Contention that premises was used as shop and residence and being a scheduled building he was not liable to be ejected on ground of personal need of landlord, repelled

No extra protection extended by law to tenant of such a building in matter of eviction on ground of personal use

Leave to appeal refused.

On facts proved on record, High Court fully competent in law to interfere with findings of two Courts below in exercise of its jurisdiction in second appeal

Order, held, unexceptionable

Plea that need of landlord would be satisfied by a part of rented premises, not having been raised earlier, not permitted to be raised for first time before Supreme Court

Appeal dismissed.

Subsequently, Building Control Authority issued notification suspending approval of those building plans wherein no agreement between landlord and tenants for alternate accommodation or compensation was submitted

Tenant in execution proceedings sought protection of notification

Objection overruled on ground that eviction order having attained finality, subsequent Regulation does not, in any way, render order of eviction inexecutable

Regylations cannot be given retrospective operation so as to take away finality of adjudication made by competent Courts or authorities under which vested rights have accrued.

Plea that it could have been decided by High Court on evidence available on record, repelled, as period of alleged default was not mentioned in ejectment application

Leave to appeal refused.

Objection raised in execution proceedings that eviction order was void having been passed against a dead person, overruled

Court will not allow party to take advantage of its fraud, petitioners not allowed to take benefit of their own fraud

Petition dismissed.

Counsel for tenant not pressing appeal but stating that since premises in question was a shop two months time be granted to vacate premises

Counsel for landlord agreeing

Order accordingly.

Coiicurreni findings of fact reached by two Courts below to effect that respondent landlady required demised premises for use of her children and findings fully supported by evidence recorded in case

Order of High Court upholding eviction of tenant maintained.

Landlord agreeing to give four months' time on condition of payment of four months' rent in advance to which tenant agreeing

Order accordingly.

Provisions of West Pakistan, Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, held, were not attracted in the case.

Keeping of cages in which chickens were kept in front of building hindering movements of occupants. of building and causing inconvenience to them for going in or out of building

No effort made by tenant to .bring evidence on record to show that immediate steps were taken for storage and proper removal of filth and dirt

Held, such activities of tenant amounted to causing nuisance to occupants of building in which shop in question was located

Rent Controller was correct in reaching conclusion that landlord had made out a case of ejectment of tenant under S. 15(2)(v) of Rent Ordinance,1979

Order of ejectment of tenant passed by Rent Controller maintained in circumstances.

Plea that challan was given by-Rent Controller quite late in the day resulting in failure to deposit within time, not accepted-Plea put forward at belated stage and its authenticity not borne out from existing record

Order not suffering from infirmity, omission or misreading of evidence, upheld by Supreme Court

Leave to appeal refused.

Plea of adjustment on account of repair, held, not tenable for want of permission-Concurrent findings of fact on question of default being based on evidence and no question of law arising for consideration, leave to appeal refused.

No ground having been made out for interference, leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.