Eviction of tenant

Petitioners / tenants were aggrieved of order passed by Lower Appellate Court setting aside order of Rent Controller whereby he framed an issue to redetermine relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties

Validity

Rent Controller had already concluded that relationship of landlord and tenant stood admitted between the parties

Any subsequent attempt to re-open or re-determine such settled question was beyond jurisdictional competence of Rent Controller

Such exercise in effect amounted to a review of earlier order of Rent Controller, which law did not permit in rent proceedings

Lower Appellate Court rightly corrected procedural irregularity by remitting the matter with the direction to Rent Controller to proceed strictly in accordance with law

Appellate order reflected judicious appreciation of record and adherence to settled legal principles

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Lower Appellate Court as there was no error of jurisdiction, illegality or material irregularity

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

After expiration of the tenancy period, a tenant, though can continue to hold over the possession of the rented premises, but his tenancy is rendered invalid, in that, it has come to an end and if there is no express consent of the landlord to extend the tenancy period the tenant shall be guilty of having infringed the condition of tenancy, rendering him liable to be evicted.

Rent Controller attempted to serve notices upon the lesses and petitioners in the rent/eviction application through various modes, including by way of Bailiff, Registered Post A/D, T.C.S, pasting notice on the wall and gate of the property and finally through publication

Despite these efforts, the lessee and petitioners in the matter failed to appear

In view of the same, the Rent Controller decided that service was valid/good against the lessee and petitioners and after being afforded several chances to contest the case, the lessee and petitioners were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte, which was followed by an ex parte judgment, allowing the land lady's (respondent's) rent/eviction application

Validity

Rent Controller had attempted to issue notices to the petitioners through numerous modes, including by way of the Court Bailiff, Registered Post A/D, T.C.S, pasting notice on the wall and gate of the property and finally through publication

It was only after exhausting all the modes of service that the Rent Controller held service to be good against the petitioners

Despite notice, through all its modes and at the correct address, the petitioners had failed to enter appearance and absented themselves from proceedings in the eviction application

Order for ex parte proceedings and ex parte judgment that followed could not, therefore, be considered as a result of fraud or misrepresentation but of the willful absence of the petitioners

Furthermore, the fact that there had earlier been litigation concerning the property was not a valid ground for interference with the findings of the three Courts below

Moreover, the controversy highlighted by the petitioners that in an earlier rent/eviction application, the respondent's attorney had claimed to be owner whereas in the instant application he claimed to be the respondent's attorney would not improve their case since it would not change their status as unauthorized sub-lessees of the original lessee

No valid ground was found for interference with the orders of the three Courts below

Petition, being devoid of any merits, was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Partial acceptance of application to the extent of ejectment and dismissal of appeal of tenant for recovery of outstanding rent

Stance of the tenants was that after the expiry of tenancy possession of the premises was handed over to the landlord with payment of all dues

Validity

Possession of the tenants over the rented premises till January 2024 had been proved and they could not prove the payment of rent for the said period, thus, in such an eventuality it was not only unjustified to disentitle the landlord from recovery of the outstanding rent at admitted rate but also against the law and the findings of the Rent Controller that the landlord could not prove the outstanding rent against the tenants were also against the facts because once it was proved that the tenants were in possession of the shop even after the expiry of tenancy, then it was their obligation to pay the rent at the rate admitted by them

Payment of the rent of the rented property was the duty of the tenants to justify their possession otherwise their possession was illegal and their status would be of the trespasser because the possession of the rented premises could only be justified through payment of rent

Findings of the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation was also against the law in juxtaposition with the possession of the tenants

Stance of tenants was required to be substantiated through cogent, reliable and convincing evidence, which was lacking on their part, thus, their submission to the extent of contents of the written reply for proof of handing over the possession of the rented premises was misconceived

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Constitutional petition was allowed.

The question relating to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant inter se parties was undoubtedly a question of fact which had been concurrently resolved by both the courts below in favour of respondent

Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be resorted merely on the ground that from the available material some other view is possible

There are concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below, which apparently did not suffer from any legal infirmity

High Court is also not ordinarily inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, particularly when they are not shown to be contrary to record or arbitrary or whimsical

In the present case, apart from the bald assertions, no specific instance was brought to the notice of the Court that might be regarded as a case of misreading or non-reading of material evidence, having direct and decisive bearing on the issues

Both the Courts exercised the jurisdiction vested in them, without violating any principles governing the assessment and appraisal of evidence

Both the judgments were well-reasoned having been passed after taking into consideration every aspect of the case

Constitutional petition, being meritless, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Failure to deposit rent, as ordered under S. 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (Act, 1963), leads to striking off defence and eviction without further proceedings as provided under S. 17(9) of the Act, 1963

Compliance with tentative rent order is mandatory to sustain defence

Eviction order issued for failure to comply with tentative order

Held: Section 17 of the Act, 1963 outlined the grounds for eviction of a tenant

Subsection (8) of S. 17 ordains that on the first hearing of proceedings under this section or as soon thereafter as may be but before the issues are framed, the Controller shall direct the tenant to deposit in his office before a specified date all the rent due from him, and also to deposit regularly till the final decision of the case, before the 5th day of each month, the monthly rent which subsequently becomes due, and if there be any dispute as to the amount of rent due, the Controller shall determine such amount approximately

Whereas subsection (9) of S. 17 of the Act, 1963 provides the consequences of non-compliance of tentative rent order passed in terms of Subsection (8)

The Additional Rent Controller was fully justified to pass the tentative rent order, which admittedly was not complied with by the appellant (tenant)

As per S. 17(9) of the Act, 1963 if the tenant fails to deposit the amount of rent before the specified date or, as the case may be, before the 5th day of the month, his application, if he is a petitioner, shall be dismissed, or his defence, if he is a respondent, shall be struck off, and the landlord shall be put in possession of the building without any further proceedings

Once, the appellant failed to comply with the tentative rent order, no option was left with the Additional Rent Controller, except to strike off his defence and to pass the eviction order, which was unexceptionable in the circumstances

The appellant had failed to point out any material irregularity justifying interference with the impugned order

The appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition filed by the respondents seeking eviction of the appellant from shop (rented premises)

Validity

Personal bona fide need is one of the recognized grounds for eviction of a tenant from the rented premises under S.17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963('the Act 1963')

Whenever a landlord pleads that the rented premises is required by him for his personal need bonafidely, assertion on oath by the landlord that he requires the property in good faith for his personal use shall be sufficient to accept his bona fide, if such assertions are consistent and in conformity with the averments of the ejectment petition

Such statement cannot be discarded in vacuum

Even otherwise, it is always the landlord, who is vested with the prerogative to exercise his choice for the rented premises and if he needs it bonafidely for his personal use, his claim cannot be rejected outrightly

No illegality or material irregularity was noticed in the impugned eviction order passed by the Rent Controller

Appeal , filed by tenant, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition filed by the respondents seeking eviction of the appellant from shop (rented premises)

Validity

If landlord canvasses multiple grounds for the eviction of the tenant it is not necessary for him to establish and prove all these grounds

If the landlord is able to prove one of the grounds asserted in the ejectment petition, the tenant can be evicted by the Rent Tribunal

No illegality or material irregularity was noticed in the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller

Appeal, filed by tenant, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition filed by the respondents seeking eviction of the appellant from shop (rented premises)

Validity

In terms of subsection (5) of S.17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 ('the Act 1963'), the Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord under subsection (4) is bona fide, make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as may be specified by the Controller

Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the building and may extend such time so as not to exceed three months in aggregate

To this effect, subsection (6) of S.17 of the Act, 1963, cannot be ignored, which ordains that where the landlord who has obtained possession of a building in pursuance of an order made under subsection (5) does not himself, or where possession of the building has been obtained for any member of his family, such member does not occupy the building within one month of the date of obtaining its possession, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that the possession of such building be restored to him and the Controller may thereon make an order accordingly

No illegality or material irregularity was noticed in the impugned eviction order passed by the Rent Controller

Appeal , filed by tenant, was dismissed, in circumstances.

The respondent No.1 (landlord) filed ejectment petition on the ground of default by petitioner (tenant) and personal bona fide need

Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application and appeal of the petitioner (tenant) was dismissed

Against the concurrent findings of the courts below petitioner (tenant) filed the present constitutional petition

Held Once the landlord stepped into the witness box and the plea of personal need went unrebutted, the ejectment application must be allowed under S.15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

It was evident from perusal of the cross-examination conducted on the respondent No.1 (landlord) that the plea of the landlord had not been shattered and no further cross-examination was conducted and only a suggestion regarding personal bona fide need was put to the witness and no other question in relation to the same was asked

For seeking eviction of a tenant from the rented premises the only requirement of law was to prove bona fide need by the landlord

However, where a landlord who obtained possession of a building from a tenant on account of his personal bona fide need and then re-let the building or premises to any person other than the previous tenant or utilized the premises for a use other than his personal use within one year of such possession then he would liable to be punished with fine not exceeding one year's rent of the building premises and the tenant who was evicted may apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing that he be restored possession

This accountability mechanism provided under S.15-A of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was introduced to ensure that ejectment proceedings were not abused and due protection was given to the tenant in cases where landlord had misused the provisions of the Ordinance, 1979

The protection given by the said provision was also available to the petitioner, however, his case did not fall within the parameters of the same, hence, the Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner filed an application under S.12(2) read with O.1, R. 10(2), C.P.C., seeking recalling of the ex-parte ejectment order on the ground that the same was obtained by way of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of true facts, but same was dismissed

Appeal was filed, which was also dismissed

Validity

Respondent No. 1 filed ejectment application against respondent No. 2, who was real brother of the petitioner, however, the petitioner did not bother to bring on record true facts as to tenancy between respondents Nos. 1 and 2

Petitioner used to deposit the rent in bank on behalf of his brother through cheques as admitted by him in cross-examination

Case of the petitioner hinged merely on a sale agreement said to have been executed in his favour by the respondent No. 1 for which he availed civil remedy by filing a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction, but failed to succeed either before the Trial Court or before the Appellate Court, whereby the claim of the petitioner as to purchase of the demised premises from the respondent No. 1 was declined

Findings of fact given by Rent Controller were concurred by the Appellate Court

Under constitutional jurisdiction, the Court avoids to give contrary findings until and unless the same are proved to be perverse, based on misreading or non-reading of evidence

Even otherwise, the powers in rent matters under constitutional jurisdiction of the Court are limited and confined only to ascertain whether the Courts below have flouted the statute or failed to follow the law relating thereto

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Rent Controller can pass order to deposit tentative rent, arrears of rent and future rent in court under S. 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (Ordinance), by making a tentative assessment of the proceedings before him/her

While passing a tentative rent order, the Rent Controller is not required to hold a full-fledged enquiry and can always pass such an order after taking into consideration the versions of the parties

Mere institution of a suit, per se, would not be sufficient to refuse compliance of the order of the Rent Controller passed on an application under S. 16(1) of the Ordinance pending final determination

Compliance of order passed under S. 16(1) is obligatory and failure thereof can entail striking of right of defence under S. 16(2) of the Ordinance

Respondent placed on record a copy of the order, whereby plaints of both the suits were rejected under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked against an interlocutory order until and unless such an order suffers from any illegality or jurisdictional error.

When a landlord/landlady pursues eviction on the grounds of personal bona fide need and non-payment of rent, such a claim cannot be dismissed simply by challenging the ownership of the property

It is pertinent to consider the substance of the landlord's claim regarding the legitimate need for the property and the alleged default in rent payment

In the case at hand the landlady (respondent) had established the default in payment of rent as well as her personal bona fide need and had also adduced affidavit in this regard

Thus, both the grounds for eviction i.e. default in payment of rent and personal bona fide need had not been disputed by the tenant (petitioner)

Petitioner had not produced any evidence to rebut the claims of the landlady

Petition filed by the tenant was dismissed and leave was refused.

In the present case tenant (petitioner) had only challenged the execution proceedings rather than the original eviction order passed by the Rent Controller

As the eviction order itself had not been challenged, it remained legally valid and enforceable unless it had been set aside by any competent court of law

Hence, the Supreme Court cannot address the grievances of the tenant (petitioner) pertaining to the issue that eviction order passed by Rent Controller was illegal

In the impugned order the High Court had solely prescribed a timeframe for vacating the demised premises

Within the framework of execution proceedings, the courts are precluded from deliberating on the merits of the underlying case

Execution proceedings are confined to the implementation of judicial decisions and do not extend to an examination of the substantive issues that may have been previously adjudicated

Accordingly, the Rent Controller was duty bound to act solely in accordance with the law and to enforce the eviction order, without the latitude to scrutinize, question, or revisit the merits thereof

Similarly, the High Court was bound by the same constraints

Thus, the decisions rendered by the Rent Controller and the High Court in the execution proceedings were justified and legally apt

Petition filed by tenant was dismissed and leave was refused.

There was no evidence to substantiate the contention of the appellant that the premises in question was rented out by another person, whereas, respondent/landlord through revenue record proved that he was the recorded owner of the property, which aspect of the matter had neither been rebutted by the tenant nor any sufficient evidence was produced to justify his possession in any lawful capacity

Tenant failed to produce any title document to support his possession over the premises in question, therefore, Rent Controller was competent to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties

Absence of tenancy agreement or rent receipt was not the determining factor to establish relationship of landlord and tenant and in absence of any contrary evidence, owner of the property by virtue of his title was presumed to be landlord and person in possession of the premises was considered as tenant under the law

Tenancy may not be necessarily created by written instrument in express terms rather may also be oral and implied

Appellant without any title document had challenged the ownership of landlord

Such conduct of the tenant was sufficient to hold him as defaulter of rent

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

If the respondent/landlord denied receiving the rent-then tenant had option to send the same through money order or to approach the Rent Controller for deposit of rent so that the conduct of the respondent/landlord not willing at all to receive the rent could surface

Even option of depositing rent before the Rent Controller had not been exercised by him during the pendency of eviction proceedings as record showed that the respondent/ landlord had approached the Rent Controller through written application of withdrawal of rent, if any, but the Nazir reported that no rent had been deposited by the petitioner/ tenant

Regarding willful default on the part of the petitioner/tenant , both the Courts below had rightly passed their respective orders and as such the same neither suffered from jurisdictional defect or any other material illegality or irregularity

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

High Court could not interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below until and unless there had been found any material irregularity or misapplication of law

In view of the conduct and demeanor of the petitioner/tenant coupled with peculiar facts of the present case, he did not deserve any equitable relief

Constructional petition was dismissed, in circumstances .

In the present case, tenancy agreement inter se the landlord and tenant had expired and there was no extension of agreement between the parties thereafter

In absence of any written agreement inter se the petitioner/tenant and respondent/landlord was to be reckoned on month to month basis and, in absence of anything to the contrary, the oral tenancy could be considered to have expired in the present case

Petitioner/tenant had failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders and judgments passed by both the Courts below warranting interference by the High Court

Constitutional petition filed by the tenant was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Held, that petitioner, while relying upon Ss. 2(a) & 2(f) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, contended that the Rent Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matters pertaining to "any place of religious worship"

Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, provides that application in respect of rented premises shall be filed in the Rent Tribunal for the settlement of the disputes in an expeditious manner; the "premises" as mentioned in S. 2(f) of the Act 2009 includes "building", while defining the word "building" S. 2(a) of the Act, 2009, excludes room in a hotel, hostel, boarding house, guest house or any place of religious worship

However the words 'any place of religious worship' by no means can be stretched to a premises or building that is being used for a commercial purpose

Admittedly, the premises-in-question are shops, being used for commercial purpose

Said provisions of the Act, 2009 cumulatively reveal that any property, space or premises let out for the purpose of business or trade are not intended to be excluded from the definition of building or for that matter premises

Thus, the objection of the petitioner as to maintainability of the ejectment-petition, was rejected

No illegality, infirmity or mistake had been made by both the Courts below while passing eviction order

Constitutional petition, filed by tenants, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plea of the tenant was that he was not under tenancy of the ejectment-petitioner, instead (he was tenant) of Evacuee Trust Property Board ('Evacuee Board') to whom rented-premises belonged

Tenant filed present constitutional petition against eviction orders concurrently passed against him

Held, that record revealed that the petitioner/tenant, while making reference to a document having been exhibited as evidence, claimed that he was a tenant of respondent (Evacuee Board)

Said document was prepared after the filing of ejectment-petition

Petitioner, in his evidence, had even denied having any knowledge as to the amount paid to respondent (Evacuee Board) at the time of alleged execution of the said document

Petitioner also admitted that a real uncle of the petitioner was president of the mosque committee but then again denied, for want of knowledge, that the said uncle/president gave the premises to the predecessor of the petitioner, on rent

Reading of evidence had left no doubt that the predecessor of the petitioner entered into (exhibited) rent agreement with the ejectment-petitioner

Petitioner asserted that instead of ejectment-petitioner, respondent (Evacuee Board) was the actual owner, however, in said respect previous judgment passed in previous constitution petition had already been decided, which was contested by respondent (Evacuee Board) as well ; and, after hearing the parties, High Court reached to the conclusion that factual controversy was involved vis-à-vis the ownership dispute which could not be resolved without recording of evidence

Said order (passed in constitutional petition), admittedly, was never assailed and instead a reference had been filed by respondent (Evacuee Board), with respect to several shops including the premises before the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board which was pending adjudication

Record even revealed that the petitioner filed a suit before institution of present eviction proceedings claiming himself to be the owner of the premises

Thus, the petitioner could not be allowed to adopt two different versions in two different cases, which was hit by principle of approbate and reprobate; in one case he had pleaded himself to be the owner of the premises and in the ejectment-petition he had taken the defence quite contrary to the earlier

Dispute of ownership, between ejectment-petitioner (Masjid) and respondent (Evacuee Board) was to be determined by the forum having authority to record evidence

Undoubtedly, the ejectment-petitioner (Masjid) for the time being was receiving rent with respect to the premises (shops)

No benefit could be given to petitioner/tenant for the dispute of ejectment-petitioner and respondent (Evacuee Board)

No illegality, infirmity or mistake had been made by both the Courts below while passing eviction order

Constitutional petition, filed by tenants, was dismissed, in circumstances.

One of the appellants / landlords ,while appearing as a witness, categorically asserted that the respondents / tenants had defaulted in payment of rent w.e.f. January, 2013

Though said assertion was refuted by the respondents / tenants in their reply but they had failed in discharging the onus

When the landlord seeks eviction of his tenant(s) on the ground of default in payment of rent, he has to only assert the factum of default supported by affidavit and the onus then would shift upon the tenant(s) to prove that he/they has/have not defaulted in payment of rent

Rent Controller founded his conclusion by wrongly relying upon evidence produced by the respondents / tenants

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.

Record revealed that one of the appellants / landlords, while himself deposing as witness, during his cross examination, admitted that previously the appellants filed various ejectment petitions against their tenants on (the same ground) of personal bona fide need and obtained possession in terms of the eviction order

Though it is prerogative of the landlord to choose any of his property which in his estimation would meet his requirements but at the same time, ground of personal bona fide need cannot be made basis for eviction of the tenant when it is established on the record that the landlord has already got vacated other properties from his tenant(s) on the same ground in the near past

It was also established on the record that appellants / landlords had shifted their residence just before filing of ejectment petition and they did not plead that the accommodation where they were residing was insufficient for their need

Thus, the appellants failed to prove that the rented promises (house) was required for their personal bono-fide need

Appeal, filed by the landlords, was disposed of.

Rate of monthly rent was claimed by the appellants/landlords as Rs.6000/-, which was controverted by the respondents/tenants, while submitting their written reply wherein they asserted that in fact the rate of rent was Rs.1,200/- per month and they had already paid all the due rent

Rent Controller decided issue relating to the rate of rent and held that the rate of rent was Rs.1,200/- per month

Examining the evidence produced by both the sides to said effect revealed no material whatsoever to differ with the findings of the Rent Controller on rate of monthly rent

Appeal, filed by the landlords , was disposed of.

Contention of the petitioner /tenant was that respondent /landlord had not claimed eviction on the expiry of lease or default in payment of rent specifically, so eviction passed on said two counts was illegal

Validity

Lease agreement, in the present case, showed that amongst other grounds of its terms and conditions, the reasons on which the eviction could be solicited was the breach of terms and conditions of the rent agreement, and a request was made by the respondent /landlord before the Tribunal that the petitioner/ tenant be directed to handover the vacant possession of the rented premises

Relevant clause of the rent agreement showed that, the period of lease , from the date of commencement of tenancy, was 11 months which was renewable with mutual consent of the parties, and one of the other commitments made therein was to vacate the premises and deliver it to the landlord on the expiry of lease period which was obviously 11 months

The same (vacation on the expiry of lease ) was one of the obligations as provided under S. 13(1)(d) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (Act, 2009) whereas S.15(a) of the Act, 2009 provided for the right of eviction on the expiry of lease while S.15(d) of the Act, 2009 entailed eviction of tenant due to violation of an obligation under S.13

Even otherwise, no receipt or document was produced on record by the petitioner / tenant in support of his plea of payment of additional security nor any written agreement of renewal of tenancy was adduced

Lease agreement was, admittedly, unregistered which automatically lapsed on 11 months

Creation of lease or renewal thereof for more than one year could not be accepted without a registered document which was not the case in the present case

Record revealed that the Appellate Court took note of the fact that while admitting the appeal for regular hearing, it was directed that the petitioner should deposit monthly rent with annual increase on or before 10th of each month regularly but the petitioner deposited the rent after 10th of each month which was evident from the receipts ,and which was not only a violation of the agreement of tenancy but also the order of the Appellate Court

Petitioner / tenant could not avoid the consequences of default committed in payment of rent and the ground of violation of the tenancy agreement as well

It was thus obvious that the question pertaining to payment of rent was only considered for the purposes of observing the violation of the order of the court, the terms of agreement of tenancy and also the violation of law

Objection raised by the petitioner was, therefore, devoid of any legal substance

Considering the facts as they emerged on record, where the expiry of lease was evident, the Special Judge (Rent) had the inherent jurisdiction to mould the relief according to altered circumstances in the larger interest of justice

Both the Courts below had rightly passed eviction orders against the petitioner/tenant

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Contention of the petitioner/tenant was that he was not defaulter as he was depositing rent without any default and also paying bills accordingly

Validity

Admitted position was that there was no mutual written agreement between the parties for the payment of rent

Case of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (co-owners of rented property was that the petitioner (tenant) defaulted in payment of monthly rent from July, 2009; as such the period stipulated under S.10(1) of the Ordinance would have expired on 10.08.2009

Default within the purview of S. 15(2)(ii) of the Ordinance, would arise if the tenant fails to pay, in the absence of mutual agreement between the parties regulating the terms and condition for payment of rent, within sixty days after the rent has become due for payment

In the present case, the due date was 10.08.2009; therefore, the alleged default would have arisen on 10.10.2009

Stance of the petitioner was that respondent No.2 refused to receive the rent for the month of July, 2009, malafidely demanding vacant possession of the rent premises; hence, having no alternative he sent the rent through money order, dated 29.09.2009, which was refused by respondent No.2; hence, the petitioner tendered the rent to respondent No.2 within stipulated period when it was due i.e. 10.08.2009 and, thereafter, he filed rent case on 10th October 2009, which was again within stipulated period; the same was granted by the Rent Controller on 12th October 2009 and on the very next day when Ledger Number was allotted, the petitioner deposited monthly rent in the Court of Rent Controller; hence, the petitioner could not be held to be a defaulter in payment of monthly rent

Findings of the Courts below on the point of default in payment of monthly rent by 12 days being against the law and facts were not sustainable in law

Controller had also allowed the subject rent application on the ground of subletting by petitioner to a doctor running a clinic in the premises by recording his findings that in the Registration Certificate of the Clinic, issued by the Sindh Health Care Commission, the column of Type of Ownership shows 'partnership' and petitioner had admitted in his cross-examination that three doctors were his partners; hence, the petitioner changed the nature of business in rented premises and started a Clinic by entering into partnership with three doctors in violation of S. 15(2)(iii)(a) of the Ordinance by creating interest of other partners in the rented premises without the consent of respondents Nos. 1 and 2

There was no denial to the fact that it was the petitioner who was depositing monthly rent in the Court of Rent Controller and not any of his so-called partners

Tax authority's record showed that the petitioner was the sole proprietor of the Clinic

Nothing was available on record to establish that the petitioner had ceased to remain a tenant and/or he had parted with the possession of the rented premises and/or he had transferred tenancy rights or otherwise created any right, title and interest in the tenancy, goodwill and business in favour of any of the so-called partners through any partnership deed, registration of partnership firm with the Registrar of Firms or any other document

Hence, the right of tenancy was preserved in the name of petitioner and other so-called partners/doctors did not have any right in the tenancy

Circumstances suggested that the impugned order and judgment of the Courts below were contrary to the letter and spirit of law, as the question of default in payment of rent on the part of the petitioner and subletting was required to be determined on the principles employed in Ss. 10, 15(2)(ii) & 15(2)(iii)(a) of the Ordinance

Since the Courts below failed to determine the rights of the parties in lis under the governing laws and as per settled principles of administration of justice, High Court had jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution to rectify the wrong and upset the erroneous concurrent findings of the Courts below by interfering in the impugned order and judgment

Constitutional petition was allowed by setting aside impugned orders, in circumstances.

Neither the petitioner/tenant rebutted relationship of landlord and tenant amongst the parties nor he brought any material to state as to when and how he had paid the rent amount for the last four years or so

At no point of time, petitioner had agitated to show his bona fide to pay rent to the respondent/landlord, and even had not pleaded the same before the Tribunal

Record was silent, on the part of the petitioner/tenant, about payment of rent amount during the period of default and receipts thereof

Moreover, the petitioner/tenant had failed to shake the evidence brought on record with regard to the default in payment of rent

Once a default was committed by a party, it would make him liable to be evicted from the premises

No illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned orders and judgments passed by both the Courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Original-landlord had admittedly transferred the rights of the demised property to his son as being his share in property, however, said son passed away whose widow surfaced claiming to be the landlady/respondent

Respondent/lady claimed personal requirement as she intended to open a shop of cosmetics with the assistance of her father-in-law by removing the intervening walls of the demised property (shops)

Plea of the petitioners/tenants was that it was not customary within the interior of Sindh that a lady could operate a shop of cosmetics

Parties had a round of litigation and the case was remanded

Validity

Record revealed that earlier, the case was remanded only as to whether or not, rent was paid to the respondent/lady after service of notice and/or service of application under S. 14 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 ('the Ordinance 1979')

Admittedly, petitioners claimed respondent/father-in-law to be their landlord and the rent was never paid to respondent/lady

Evidence as required under S. 14 was not challenged by the petitioners

Even if it was considered to be case of personal requirement under S. 15 of the Ordinance, 1979, respondent/lady in her affidavit-in-evidence had stated that she intended to open a shop of cosmetics by removing the intervening walls of the shops, with the assistance of her father-in-law/respondent

Plea of the petitioners was not tenable as no customary law was recognized which could restrict a women/lady from conducting a lawful business such as present one i.e. running a shop of cosmetics

Assistance of father-in-law of the respondent/lady was also not denied, who (father-in-law) might be old and feeble but moral and valuable assistance was always there

Although after remand the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court had not given any findings on personal need either with or without bona fide requirement but since the evidences was otherwise available, therefore, High Court decided both the issues in favour of respondent that in either case, even if it was an application under S. 15, the personal bona fide need had been proved though such bona fide was not required under S.14 of the Ordinance

Default had taken place as no rent was admittedly tendered after notice of the application under S. 14 of the Ordinance 1979

In evidence of father-in-law he had stated that the proprietary rights of his property had been devolved amongst all his sons and daughters and demised property had come in the pool of husband of respondent/lady, who had expired

Thus, on both the counts, claim of the petitioners was liable to be dismissed; however, the rights as available to the tenant to challenge conduct of business by respondent/lady under S. 15-A of the Ordinance 1979 would remain protected

Constitutional petition filed by the tenant was dismissed, in circumstances.

Rent Controller issued specific order, against the tenants, under S. 17(8) of the Cantonment Rent Restrictions Act, 1963, ('the Act 1963') directing not only to deposit arrears of rent spanning last 13 (thirteen) years but also to deposit an amount comprising 10% annual increase in monthly rent as per agreement

Tenants/appellants did not comply with the order regarding 10% annual increase amount

Rent Controller struck down the defence of tenants/appellants under S. 17(9) of the Act, 1963 and passed eviction order

Held, that Ss. 17(8) & 17(9) of the Act, 1963, in view of the word "shall" used therein, were mandatory in nature and tenants/appellants were required to comply with the specific order in letter and spirit for the reason that the said provisions carried a penalty of striking down of the defence of tenants

No proof was brought on record by the tenants/appellants that they, in addition to rent, had also deposited 10% annual increase amount

Due to non-compliance of specific order, they (tenants) had committed willful default and the Rent Controller was justified to strike down their defence and to order their eviction

No illegality or infirmity was found in the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller

Appeals were dismissed, in circumstances.

Tenant had not complied with the order passed by Rent Controller for deposit of the tentative rent arrears coupled with the deposit of regular monthly rent

Rent Controller had rightly exercised the jurisdiction under S. 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

However, this argument was not valid because the tenant did not plead this aspect in his written reply, nor did he present receipts as evidence

Additionally, the tenant did not produce any official from the post office to support his claim about payment through money orders or the landlord's refusal to accept it

Evidence presented by the tenant was not convincing and did not support his submission

Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Since the tenancy period had ended, there was no justification for the tenant to retain possession of the rented premises without the landlord's consent

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Plea of payment of pagri/security does not disentitle the landlord form filing the ejectment proceedings against the tenant on the ground of personal bona fide need

Payment of security cannot operate as an obstacle against the right of landlord to use his own property when genuinely required.

Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, stipulates that if the tenancy relationship is undisputed, the Rent Controller will direct the tenant to deposit all rent payments due and require regular deposits until the final decision of the case

Tenant must deposit the monthly rent payment before the fifteenth of each month

Rent payment becomes due on the last day of the preceding month, and the Rent Controller has no power to extend the payment deadline

Tenant is also not allowed to deposit the rent at his discretion.

Tenant's witness admitted that the tenant was living abroad to earn a livelihood and that he was running a business in the rented premises

Witness also stated that he took possession of the rented premises from the tenant, who had occupied it for only 2-3 months

Landlord's claim that he was in personal need of the rented premises to establish a business for his sons, who had acquired shops on rent in another market, was also admitted by the witness

Landlord was successful in establishing a case for the tenant's eviction, and the petition was dismissed.

After expiry of tenancy when no further tenancy agreement is executed, tenancy between the parties is to be considered on month-to-month basis, and after expiry of tenancy period the tenant loses his right to continue his possession as a tenant over the rented premises.

No restriction exists for seeking the eviction of the tenant on the ground of reconstruction of the demised premises subject to the conditions as provided in S.13(2)(vi) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959

No requirement of the law for the landlord to establish that the demised premises are in dilapidated or in dangerous condition because the landlord has a right to improve his property despite the building may not be in dilapidated condition, however, S. 13(2)(vi) has provided a mechanism which manifests that the building or rented land is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for reconstruction or erection of a building on the site, and the landlord has obtained necessary sanction for the said reconstruction from the concerned authority for the area where such building or rented land is situated

Section 13(2)(vi) makes it obligatory for the landlord to obtain necessary sanction of reconstruction or erection of new building from relevant authorities at the time of filing of ejection/eviction application or even during its pendency but said provision does not require it to be renewed again and again before starting the actual process of reconstruction.

Approval of building plan was neither placed before the Rent Controller nor before the Appellate Court in order to substantiate the contention of the landlord for reconstruction or erection of a new building and the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution could not be held to be continuation of the ejectment application filed before the Rent Controller

Application of landlord was premature, as such, it was rightly dismissed by both the lower fora

Order of ejectment on the ground of reconstruction and good faith could only be passed after holding proper inquiry/trial

Writ petition was dismissed.

Rent Controller, in the impugned order, selected one petition for further proceedings while the rest of the petitions were consigned to the record room without any further action

Validity

Although the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 does not impose any restrictions on the application of principles and procedures laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 and even a single ejectment application can conveniently be filed against several tenants if the grounds for eviction are similar and based on the same agreement

However, when landlords file ejectment applications based on different agreements, different grounds, and against different tenants, the rights of the parties, who are differently placed, cannot be conveniently and conclusively decided in a single petition

This would result in a multifariousness of causes of actions

Impugned order not only went against the spirit of the law but also caused significant inconvenience and delay to the parties involved

Regarding the maintainability of the present petition, an appeal could be filed under S. 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance of 1959 by a party aggrieved by an order of the Rent Controller that finally disposes of the application made under the Ordinance

However, since the impugned order had not finally disposed of the applications under the Ordinance, it could not be challenged through an appeal

Consequently, no efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner, and therefore, the present writ petition was maintainable

Impugned order was set aside, all the ejectment petitions were restored and the Rent Controller was directed to simultaneously proceed with the cases and decide the same in accordance with the law.

Petitioner/tenant committed default in payment of tentative rent fixed by Rent Tribunal and eviction order was passed against it

Validity

Rate of rent was not denied by petitioner/tenant

Rent Tribunal rightly directed petitioner/tenant to deposit monthly rent on tentative basis in Court till 10th of each month by subjecting the said payment to adjustment at final stage in the rent dues payable towards it

Behavior of petitioner/tenant was irresponsible with regard to payment of tentative rent as directed by Rent Tribunal in its order

High Court declined to interfere in final ejectment order passed in terms of S.24 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, as it was justified

No illegality or perversity was found in ejectment order passed against petitioner/tenant

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner/tenant assailed eviction order on the plea that no relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant existed

Validity

Record showed the respondents as owner in the khata where the rented premises was situated

Petitioner in his application for leave to contest admitted the stance of the respondents that their predecessor filed an ejectment petition against him which was concluded in shape of compromise

Courts below while deciding the ejectment petition based their findings upon said proceedings and concluded that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties

From perusal of record it appeared that predecessor of respondents filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner whereby, he claimed that petitioner got the rented premises through a lease agreement

From perusal of ejectment petition, lease agreement and rough site plan it appeared that the same description of the rented premises was given against which present ejectment petition had been filed

Petitioner filed contesting written reply and predecessor of the respondents filed replication

During the proceedings of said ejectment petition, parties of said ejectment petition arrived at a compromise which was brought on record

In the light of said compromise, ejectment petition was disposed of

In compromise deed, petitioner accepted the relationship of landlord and tenant with predecessor of the respondents

Petitioner got recorded his statement and during cross-examination admitted that the ejectment petition of respondents was with regard to the same property against which predecessor of the respondents filed ejectment petition

Petitioner also admitted that he did not purchase any portion from the rented premises from predecessor of the respondents or from respondents

From scanning of said evidence it was established that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between petitioner and the predecessor of respondents

After demise of predecessor, the respondents stepped into his shoes and became landlord of the petitioner

Once petitioner acknowledged himself to be tenant of the appellant in the suit shop the principle of estoppel would come into play debarring the tenant/respondent to deny the title of his landlord

Courts below keeping in view the evidence available on the record had rightly concluded that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties

Writ petition having no merits was dismissed.

Rent Tribunal dismissed the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord, however, the Appellate Court accepted the same

Petitioner/tenant claimed to be in possession of the demised-premises on the basis of an agreement to sell allegedly having been executed by the father of respondent/landlord

Validity

Agreement-in-question had been denied by the respondent/ landlord

Although a suit for specific performance of said agreement had been filed by the petitioner/tenant which was subjudice before the Civil Court , however, his claim/plea was yet to be proved, whereas the title of the respondent/landlord over the demised premises was not disputed

Owner of the property by virtue of said title would be presumed to be landlord and the person in possession of the same would be construed as tenant

Tenancy agreement was not necessarily required to be in writing rather the same could be oral and implied

Even otherwise, suit of specific performance was subsequently instituted by the petitioner/tenant after the eviction petition having already been filed

Section 10 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 ('the Act 2009') clearly indicated that any other agreement between the landlord and tenant did not affect their relationship inter se unless the tenancy agreement had been revoked

Nothing was available on record to suggest that the oral tenancy agreement was revoked prior to execution of agreement to sell alleged by the petitioner/tenant

Petitioner/tenant was obliged to vacate the demised property under the circumstances, which (possession) would be restored to him in case of success in his civil suit pending adjudication before the Civil Court

Appellate Court had rightly accepted the eviction petition of the respondent/landlord

Constitutional petition was dis-missed in limine, in circumstances.

No regular payment was made by the appellant, especially for the period highlighted by the courts below, and nor was the requisite enhancement made since the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties

Tenant was bound to increase rent after every three years, failure whereof would entail consequences of willful default

Arrears of rent becoming due provided that if tenant had not paid or tendered rent due within stipulation provided therein, court might pass eviction order

Finding of the courts below were found to be in conformity with the applicable law

No exception could be taken to the impugned findings

Appeals were dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner/tenant invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to assail concurrent findings passed against him

Validity

High Court , normally, does not operate as a Court of appeal in rent matters, rather its jurisdiction is limited to disturb those findings which, prima facie, appearing to have resulted in some glaring illegalities resulting into miscarriage of justice

Finality in rent hierarchy is attached to the Appellate Court, and when there are concurrent findings of both the rent authorities, the scope becomes rather tight

Present petition falls within writ of certiorari against the judgments passed by both the Courts below in rent jurisdiction, which cannot be disturbed until and unless it is proved that the same is result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence

No illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine in circumstances.

Contention of the petitioner/tenant was that he was lawful purchaser/owner of the demised premises under sale-agreement having paid huge amount of sale-consideration to the respondent/landlord

Validity

Sale-agreement was not a title agreement but, at the most, a right to sue for such title or rights arising out of such agreement

Such rights never came to an end even if order of ejectment was recorded in Rent jurisdiction nor such order could legally cause any prejudice to legal entitlement of the purchaser if he would succeed in such lis

Attorney of the petitioner/tenant, however, had admitted that suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner against the respondent /landlord had been rejected by the Court of competent jurisdiction

Even contents of the sale-agreement mentioned that the payment was being made as part-payment towards "total goodwill sale amount" in respect of demised premises

Term 'goodwill' was not recognized under provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (' the Ordinance 1979'), however, the superior Courts had equated the same with term "Pagri"

Plea of tenant that he had paid goodwill for premises , in no manner, could succeed as a ground of defence when eviction of tenant was being sought by the landlord

Goodwill amount, if be presumed in the present case, was paid in respect of demised premises, even then it would not debar the respondent/landlord to seek eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal bona fide need

Evidence of the respondent/landlord regarding his bona fide need remained unshaken

Such claim was not specifically denied by the petitioner/tenant

Mere bald denial of relationship, therefore, by the petitioner without any cogent evidence could not be given any weight

Default of even a day was sufficient to entitle the landlord for ejectment of tenant from the demised premises

No illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below, constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

In response, the petitioner filed an application invoking S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, read with S. 94 of the C.P.C.

Application requested a stay on the rent case proceedings and an order referring the parties to arbitration in accordance with the Lease Deed

However, the Rent Controller dismissed the application

Validity

Specific nature of disputes to be referred to arbitration was outlined in Clause 11 of the Lease Deed

Said clause stipulated that any questions, differences, objections, or disputes relating to the Lease Deed or the rights, duties, or liabilities of either party would be referred to arbitration with the petitioner company's General Manager Retail

Nevertheless, the clause appeared to exclude disputes concerning arrears of rent between the parties from arbitration

Moreover, the petitioner's reliance on the Lease Deed was deemed inconsequential due to other clauses that governed the matter of recovery of arrears

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, prescribed a specific procedure for ejecting a tenant under S. 13, and it did not allow the Rent Controller to order or disallow eviction based on an arbitration award

Rent Controller, operating under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, held a limited scope of inquiry to determine the existence of grounds for eviction

Arbitration was not contemplated within this limited jurisdiction

Additionally, as the Rent Controller was not a Civil Court, as such he lacked the authority to receive an award from an arbitrator and make it binding

Entire framework of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, clearly intended to exclude the settlement of disputes between landlords and tenants through arbitration

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Rent Controller was on leave on one of the dates of hearing ('date-in-question') of rent-case and the Reader of the Court gave next date of hearing of the case for cross-examination of the respondent/landlady and her witnesses

On next date of hearing, Rent Controller debarred the petitioner from cross-examination and subsequently passed eviction order

Appellate Court maintained the findings passed by the Rent Controller

Contention of the petitioner/tenant was that on date-in-question, the Reader of the Court could not give next date for particular purpose (of cross-examination); and that the respondent/landlady and her witnesses were not present on (next) date and he was debarred from cross-examining them

Respondent/landlady contended that the plea that Reader could not give next date of hearing could not be agitated before the High Court as the same plea had not be raised earlier before the Appellate Court

Validity

Diary-sheet of the present case revealed that on the date-in-question the Rent Controller was on leave when the case was adjourned to the next date for the cross-examination of the respondent/landlady

However, on next date, only the counsel of the respondent/landlady was present and she and her witnesses were absent so said absence became relevant as they (respondent, her counsel and her witnesses) were present on the immediately preceding two dates before date-in-question

Contention of the petitioner/tenant regarding absence of respondent/landlady and her witnesses was correct

Admittedly on date-in-question, the next date of hearing for the cross-examination (of respondent/land lady and her witnesses) was given by the Reader and not by the Rent Controller himself

Said next date could not to be treated/deemed as a date fixed by the Rent Controller for cross-examination

Reader of the Court was not competent to fix the case for hearing or evidence, and he (Reader) could only give the next date for further proceedings

Reader ought to have simply given the next date for further proceedings; and, on next date, the Rent Controller ought to have himself given the next date for cross-examination, instead of taking up the case for cross-examination and debarring the petitioner/tent from cross-examining respondent/ landlady

Thus, not only the order given on date-in-question but all the subsequent orders were void

Objection of the respondent/landlady that plea of Petitioner/tenant that Reader could not give next date of hearing could not be urged before High Court was not sustainable as a ground involving a question of law could be raised at any stage

Impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below were set-aside, in circumstances

High Court remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for decision afresh from the stage of affording the petitioner/tenant opportunity to cross-examine the respondent/landlady and her witnesses

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Contention of the petitioner/tenant was that the demised premises (shops) were obtained on goodwill/Pagri, which was paid by him to the original owner (father of the respondents), hence a right had been created

Validity

Record revealed that in the first round of litigation no plea of goodwill/Pagri was taken by the petitioner before Rent Controller or Appellate Tribunal and such ground was taken after remand of the case

If it was presumed in the present case that the Goodwill amount was paid in respect of demised premises, even then it would not debar the respondent / landlord to seek eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal bona fide need

Petitioner / tenant, during the cross-examination, had admitted that he had not paid rent since July, 2013 , and that no money order was ever transmitted to any respondent (legal-heir of the original owner) which was refused

Thus, default in payment of monthly rent stood proved

Two respondents (sons of the original owner) not only filed affidavits but appeared in the witness-box stating that, being unemployed, the demised premises were required by to them for starting their business ; and their evidence remained unshaken and could not be shattered during cross-examination

No documentary proof had been brought on record by the petitioner / tenant to establish that their (respondents') demand was not in good faith

Statement of landlord on oath being consistent with pleadings and not shaken in cross-examination, was sufficient to prove that requirement of landlord was bonafide

No illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner/tenant invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to assail concurrent findings passed against him

Validity

High Court, normally, does not operate as a Court of appeal in rent matters, rather its jurisdiction is limited to disturbing those findings which, prima facie, appear to have resulted in some glaring illegalities resulting into miscarriage of justice

Finality in rent hierarchy is attached to the Appellate Court, and when there are concurrent findings of both the rent authorities the scope becomes rather tight

Petition falls within writ of certiorari against the judgments passed by both the Courts below in rent jurisdiction, which cannot be disturbed until and unless it is proved that the same is result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence

No illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.