Eviction proceedings

2026 SCMR 717 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.13Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.115Eviction proceedingsTenant denying landlord's titleRemedy for the tenantMaintainability of ejectment petitionScope

Respondents instituted a suit for recovery of produce and ejectment against the petitioners which was decreed; the petitioners' appeal, revision petition, and constitutional petition before the High Court all failed, whereafter they approached the Supreme Court through filing of the present petition

Issue before the Supreme Court was as to "whether the tenant, while retaining possession, could dispute the landlord's title on the basis of an alleged ownership claim, and whether ejectment proceedings in such circumstances remained maintainable?"

Held: Where a person entered into possession as a tenant, he was estopped from disputing the title of the landlord so long as he continues to retain possession under the tenancy

The principle of estoppel was embodied in Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which debarred a tenant from denying the title of the landlord during the continuance of tenancy

Unless and until the tenant established his alleged proprietary rights before a competent forum, the relationship between the parties continued to be regulated by tenancy law

If a tenant disputed the proprietary title of the landlord, he had to first vacate and surrender possession, and only thereafter could contest title

As regards the second question as to maintainability of ejectment proceedings was concerned, even if the tenant asserted acquisition of ownership rights by purchase of a share in the property, such assertion by itself did not render ejectment proceedings incompetent, particularly because the Rent Controller exercised a limited jurisdiction and could not adjudicate upon complicated questions of title

Impugned judgment of the High Court did not warrant any interference

Leave was refused and petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2026 YLR 547 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.22 & 25Eviction proceedingsLeave to contestPreconditionsScope

An application before the Rent Tribunal can only be contested by a respondent while moving an application for leave to contest in terms thereof within ten days of first appearance before the Rent Tribunal

Leave to contest can only be allowed to a respondent if his application discloses sufficient grounds for production of oral evidence

Subsection (6) of S.22 of the Act, 2009 ordains that if the leave to contest is refused or the respondent has failed to file application for leave to contest within the stipulated time, the Rent Tribunal shall pass the final order

On the other hand, S.25 of the Act, 2009 caters the situation if the leave to contest is allowed to the respondent

Like Subsection (6) of S.22, Subsection (5) of S.25 of the Act, 2009 also find mention the term "final order".

2026 YLR 492 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.13 & 15Eviction proceedingsTenant subletting demised premises without landlord's written consentImpermissibilitySub-lessee failing to establish lawful possessionSub-lessee claiming ownership of demised premises on the basis of a mere sale agreementLegalitySale agreementNature and legal effectSale agreement not being a document of title and having limited evidentiary valueClaim of ownership by tenant or sub-lessee in rent proceedingsScope and limitationsSituation where tenant or sub-lessee asserts ownership of demised premisesMandatory legal course highlightedObligation to vacate the premises and pursue civil remedy before competent forumPrinciple

The petitioner, owner/landlord, rented out the demised premises to respondent No.1/tenant under a rent agreement in 1988 containing a prohibition against subletting; however, in 1990, respondent No.1 sublet the premises to respondent No.2 without the petitioner's (landlord) written consent and in some instances possession was further handed over to respondent No.3, while rent fell into arrears

The petitioner filed rent applications seeking eviction and recovery of arrears, which were allowed by the rent controller; first rent appeals filed by the respondents were allowed by the appellate court, reversing the rent controller's findings

The petitioner thereafter filed constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging the appellate judgments

Held: Record showed that respondent No.2 (sub-lessee) although denied relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner (landlord), however, he had failed to produce any ownership documents and/or to prove his legal possession over the demised property

In the evidence respondent No.1 (tenant) candidly admitted that he entered into rent agreement with the petitioner (landlord) and that he sublet the demised premises to respondent No.2 and that since he did not receive payment from respondent No.2 as such he could not pay the same to the petitioner

Appellate Court completely lost sight of the fact that respondent No.2 failed to justify his possession over the demised premises

Under S.15(2)(ii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, subletting without the landlord's written consent constituted a valid ground for eviction

In so far as findings of appellate court with respect to criminal case was concerned it was well settled that standards of appraisement of evidence in criminal and civil case were altogether different therefore, findings of a criminal court were not binding on Civil Court

Respondent No.2 (sub-lessee) relying on a sale agreement did not suffice for the purpose of establishing his proprietary right over the property since sale agreement was not a title document

Petitioner (landlord) successfully proved that he was owner/landlord of the demised premises and respondent No.1 (tenant) committed default in payment of rentals and that he had further sub-let the demised premises without petitioner's (landlord) written consent

Moreover, where tenant claimed ownership rights over the property then he was legally mandated to vacate the premises, pursue civil remedy and upon a favorable judgment, regain possession of the property

High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction intervened in the matter since Appellate Court exceeded jurisdiction vested in it which resulted in miscarriage of justice

Impugned judgment of appellate court was set aside and orders passed by rent controller were restored

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2024 CLC 1776 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts.70 & 89Cantonments Rent Restrictions Act (XI of 1963), S.17Eviction proceedingsQanun-e-Shahadat Order ( 10 of 1984), applicability ofScopeDocumentary evidence, relevancy / admissibility ofReceipt of monthly rent, tendering ofScopeReceipt of rent was exhibited / brought on record through the statement of counsel of the tenants

Rent Controller , while relying on said exhibited receipt dismissed ejectment petition filed by the appellants / landlords

Validity

Record revealed that in order to rebut the stance (default in payment of rent ) of the appellants/ landlords , one of the respondents/tenants appeared as sole witness in support thereof; in addition, a rent receipt was made part of record by exhibiting the same

Adverting to the validity and authenticity of exhibited rent-receipt, it was noticed that same was brought on record through the statement of counsel and it was heavily relied by the Rent Controller, while deciding the issue against the appellants / landlords

For true import of the relevant provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 dealing with the relevancy and admissibility of the documentary evidence, though rigors of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, cannot be pressed into service with full force in the proceedings before the Rent Controller but cardinal principles regulating the procedure for recording of evidence cannot be kept aside totally­­­

Rent Controller founded his conclusion exclusively relying upon rent receipt-in-question which was not admissible at all and was only an anecdotal piece of evidence

Thus, the appellants / landlords remained successful in proving that the respondents / tenants committed default in payment of rent

High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller ; consequently , the ejectment petition stood accepted, and the respondents / tenants were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the rented-premises (house) to the appellants / landlord within thirty (30) days

Appeal, filed by the landlords, was allowed.

2023 CLC 1770 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 13Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Eviction proceedingsFactual controversy, determination ofConstitutional jurisdiction of the High CourtScope

While exercising constitutional jurisdiction, High Court will not enter into factual controversies which have already been dealt by a competent Court of law vested with statutory powers, particularly when there is no jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities such as arbitrariness and others in the order assailed before the High Court

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court directing eviction of the petitioners/tenants on the basis of personal bona fide need of the respondent/landlord

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2023 CLC 1770 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 13Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Eviction proceedingsWell reasoned judgment passed by the Appellate CourtConstitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, invoking ofScope

Appellate Court had declared the bona fide need of the landlord / respondent as genuine after taking into consideration sufficient reasons

Such findings of the Appellate Court were based upon elaborate, careful and correct appraisal of evidence and did not suffer from any mis-reading of evidence

Findings of the Appellate Court without any illegality or infirmity could not warrant interference by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction

It was not the mandate of the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction to substitute its own findings for the findings recorded by the Appellate Court after due appraisal of evidence

Party approaching the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction had to demonstrate gross mis-reading or non-reading of evidence or any jurisdictional defect floating on the surface , but in the present case said pre-conditions were missing

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court directing eviction of the petitioners/tenants on the basis of personal bona fide need of the respondent/landlord

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2017 YLR 453 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 21Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional jurisdictionScopeEviction proceedingsAppealScope

Issues of fact once decided after recording of evidence could be subjected to scrutiny only by the appellate forum provided under the relevant laws

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was a special law and only one appeal had been provided against eviction

Remedy of second appeal or revision could not be invoked by the party aggrieved of an order of the appellate forum under the law

Concurrent findings of courts below could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction except jurisdictional defect in the proceedings

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked as a substitute of revision or second appeal by a party aggrieved by the final appellate order.

2013 YLR 1881 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 17Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionEviction proceedingsNecessary partyScope

Person claiming to be impleaded as party on the ground that he had purchased rented property, was not necessary party to be impleaded in rent proceedings.

2011 CLC 477 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 13(2)(vi), 13-A & 2(c)Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionEviction proceedingsPremises required for reconstruction by landlord`Landlord'MeaningRent Controller accepted ejectment petitionAppellate Court upheld the order of Trial CourtTenant contended that the landlord never apprised him of the partition of demised premises in his favourValiditySuit shops were hundred years old and were in dilapidated condition dangerous for human occupationLandlord was consistent in his deposition as to bona fide personal need of the demised property for reconstruction

Tenant having very weak right in demised property was not entitled to deny the landlord reconstruction or improvement in such property

Landlord was one of the joint owners of the demised property . and had been receiving rent collected on his behalf by his brother who admitted to the existence of family partition

Clause (c) of S.2 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 did not restrict the meaning of the word `landlord' only to the person who actually received rent but also included a person eligible to receive rent though he might never have received rent in past

Landlord and any other person collecting rent on his behalf were entitled jointly or severally to institute eviction proceedings under S.13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959

Having not agitated the ownership of the landlord at the time of framing the issues, tenant could not raise the plea of framing issue to determine the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant

Notice under S.13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was required only where landlord had sought eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent by the tenant

Landlord did not agitate default in rent while tenant acknowledged the ownership of landlord, so verbal demand by landlord was sufficient to inform the tenant about his exclusive ownership and personal need of the demised property

Tenant had no right to question the suitability of rented property to a particular personal use

Statement of landlord on oath consistent with his averments was sufficient to establish his bona fide personal need

Tenant's objection to the legality of reconstruction of demised property was a matter to be decided by the municipality which issued approved site plan and permission of reconstruction

Law did not provide for any specific mode to evaluate the bona fide personal need of the landlord; satisfaction of Rent Controller was the criterion for determining the bona fide personal need of the landlord

Rent Controller's conclusion that the demised property was genuinely required by the landlord for reconstruction was based on solid evidence

Tenant's petition was dismissed in circumstances.

1982 SCMR 1197 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 13 (6) read with Oaths Act (X of 1873)-Eviction proceedings Special Oath-Tenant offering to pay rent as claimed by landlord and also to be liable to ejectment if landlord took oath on Holy Qur'an regarding rent being due at rate claimed-Case adjourned to another date for oath taking-Tenant, however, before date fixed for oath taking withdrawing offer on ground of same having been made on misunderstanding-Landlord bringing Holy Qur'an on appointed date, taking oath on Holy Qur'an affirming rent being due at rate claimed Rent Controller passing order for ejectment-Contended that Oaths Act, 1873 having not been applicable to proceedings before Rent Controller and full compliance having not been made with its provisions and petitioner-tenant having withdrawn offer before actual taking of oath, normal course of inquiry should have been adopted by Rent Controller Held : Matter within discretion of Rent Controller to .permit such type of withdrawal or to refuse permission-Rent

1980 SCMR 993 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 17-Eviction proceedings

Landlord and tenant-Contention that respondent having been declared landlord of petitioner without formally framing an issue on point proceedings deserved to be set aside-Held: Entire matter including circumstances in which respondent became owner of property explained in evidence and on its basis respondent held to be landlord-Petitioner in absence of any claim for framing a specific issue on point could not complain as to such question having been decided without formally framing any issue-Evidence on point could also not be reappraised by High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction and conclusion reached by Rent Controller and District Judge after due appraisal of evidence, held, final.