Landlord and Tenant

Person in possession is presumed to be tenant of that property.

Ownership of party was not an essential condition to create relationship of landlord and tenant.

Landlords filed suit for recovery of price of articles which were removed by the tenant while handing over possession of the suit property

Trial court decreed the claim to a certain extent

Validity

Landlords had to first prove that at the time of handing over possession of the property on rent, said articles were installed and handed over to the tenant

Trial Court had erred in law while holding that the tenant had failed to prove that the articles belonged to him, hence, he had no right to remove the same and as such liable to pay price so that the landlords be compensated

Landlords had not alleged that at the time of handing over the possession of the suit property on rent to the tenant said articles were installed

Revision petition was allowed, concurrent findings of the courts below were set aside and the suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Landlord may not be essentially an owner of the property and ownership may not always be a determining factor to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties

However, in the normal circumstances in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the owner of the property by virtue of his title is presumed to be the landlord and the person in possession of the premises is considered as tenant under the law.

During subsistence of tenancy, tenant has no right to challenge the title of landlord.

In such a situation, the owner of the property shall be presumed and taken as landlord and the occupier of the same, who is not owner of the premises, as tenant

Said general principle can only be rebutted if a contesting claimant comes up with a declaration of competent court of law declaring him to be owner of the property.

Petitioner-tenant alleged that the respondent-landlady had illegally and unlawfully dispossessed him from the rented premises

Trial Court dismissed the complaint of petitioner

Validity

Petitioner remained tenant of respondent from 2012 onwards

Petitioner had sent rent amount by money order to respondent and upon refusal to accept the same, petitioner deposited rent with the Rent Controller

Case of petitioner fell within the ambit of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and Trial Court had erred in reaching to the conclusion that case did not attract the provisions of said Act

Revision petition was accepted.

Ejectment order had been passed by the Revenue Court with reasons which had been upheld up to the apex court of revenue hierarchy

Revenue Court had rightly assumed the jurisdiction and proceeded with the matter in accordance with law

Revenue Court had decided the lis with conscious and application of independent mind

No infirmity or illegality had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the revenue hierarchy

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Owner and landlord of rented premises cannot be deprived of his right and interest to use his property in any manner suited to his requirements and any unreasonable restrictions on right to choose any of his property for his need in good faith which will offend his constitutional rights guaranteed under Art. 23 of Constitution.

If buyer had purchased a property with all the liabilities then the encumbrances that were attached to the said property would automatically transfer to the buyer

Tenant, in the present case, had paid 'pagri' to the previous owners

New owner had stepped into the shoes of previous owners after purchase of suit property

New owner was bound by all the deeds and agreements executed between previous owners and tenant after purchase of property

New owner became absolute owner of the property after taking over possession and its charge and payment of entire consideration amount

New owner was entitled for every benefit of the property and at the same time was also responsible for all encumbrances attached to the said property

Ownership of property would pass to the new owner on completion of sale transaction who was bound to pay all the encumbrances attached to the property

Previous owners had no more concern with the property in question nor in any manner were responsible for any of its liability

Tenant was occupying the premises against payment of nominal amount as rent

Liabilities attached to the property was the reason of lesser amount of sale transaction of the same

New owner despite having knowledge of the liabilities attached to the property purchased the same

New owner was beneficiary of eviction of tenant from the shop in question whereas re-payment of amount of 'pagri' was subject to such ejectment

New owner of the property was responsible for payment of the amount of premium received by the previous owners against the shop in question

Had the tenant not been evicted from the premises in question, there would have been no demand of payment of premium

New owner of premises himself opted to get eviction of the tenant

Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit to the extent of payment of amount of pagri to the tenant but responsibility had been wrongly fixed

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were modified

Suit filed by the tenant for recovery of amount of premium was decreed against new owner of the property who should pay the said amount within a specified period

Appeal was accepted partly.

Petitioner inducted as tenant under a written agreement, could not challenge the title of the landlord without first surrendering the possession to him.

Dispute, in the present case, awas with regard to imposing of stamp duty on refundable security deposit paid by tenant to landlord

Validity

Rent was a liability payable in future, periodically or on occasions specified in the instrument executed between parties

When "rent" was determined in lease instrument together with a covenant to pay the same at a specified time and if such liability was met by making advance payment of entire rent, such payment of rent would be treated as rent and not otherwise for the reason that legal character of such payment was rent and simply because it had been paid in advance would not change its character

"Premium", on the other hand was a price which might be paid prior to lease or it could be price paid after the lease in consideration for grant of lease but its promise had to be made prior to lease

Expression "for money advanced" as used in Art.35(b) and (c) of First Schedule to Stamp Act, 1899, also meant onetime payment from lessee to landlord for grant of benefit of lease, which money was not to revert back to the lessee

Rent deed executed between landlord and tenant and amount of security deposit mentioned therein did not come within the mischief of Art.35(c)(i) of First Sched. to Stamp Act, 1899

High Court set aside the order passed by authorities as the same were without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Trial Court convicting the landlords under S.3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and directing them to restore possession of property to the complainant-tenant

Legality

Contention of the landlords were that disputed property was given to the complainant-tenant on a monthly rent and the tenant was trying to usurp arrears of rent; that the complainant-tenant did not pay the electricity bills despite promising to pay them, and that the complainant-tenant himself gave possession of the premises

Validity

Evidence on record did not state that the landlords belonged to a land mafia, Qabza group or were property grabbers

Station House Officer (SHO) who was star witness of the case stated in his examination-in-chief that landlords were the owners of the property in question and had given the property to the complainant-tenant on rent; that the complainant-tenant had not paid the electricity bills; and that the complainant-tenant's contention that he had not taken the property on rent from the landlords but from some other person, was false

Complainant-tenant had failed to establish that landlords were land grabbers or belonged to a Qabza group

Present dispute was between individuals over immovable property and no case was made out under S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which Act had been made for a special purpose and for special objects

Landlords had been wrongly sentenced

Appeal was allowed, landlords were acquitted of the charge and the complainant-tenant was directed to hand over the possession of the disputed premises to the landlords.

Plaintiffs (sub-tenants) filed suit for permanent injunction against the landlord and the tenant on the ground that they (plaintiffs) were sub-tenants of the tenant and should not be ejected illegally

Plaintiffs also filed an application for interim relief

Trial Court allowed in term relief whereas the appellate court set aside the order of the Trial Court

Contention by landlord was that there was no. relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiffs and that the application for deposit of rent by plaintiffs was collusive in order to defeat the execution proceedings pending against the tenant and the plaintiffs had entered into an agreement for sub-tenancy, which was not permissible under the terms of tenancy between the landlord and the tenant

Validity

Record revealed that proceedings between the landlord and the tenant were decided by the Rent Controller for ejectment of tenant

Sub-tenancy appeared to be a device to defeat the lawful decrees passed by courts below in the previous round of litigation

Suit filed by plaintiffs appeared to be one of gross abuse of process of law and had to be decided on a preliminary issue of maintainability

High Court dismissed revision petition in limine having been filed in gross abuse of the procedure and law provided for redressal of grievances of the bona fide litigants.

Suit for ejectment and recovery of produce in the court of DDOR (Judicial) against petitioners who denied relation of landlord and tenant between the parties and claimed ownership of suit property but the Trial Court decreed the suit to the extent of ejectment of petitioners

District Collector, in appeal, adjourned the case sine die with direction to respondents to approach civil court for declaration of title of suit property

Revenue Appellate Court accepted appeal of respondents for share of produce also

Validity

When petitioners had categorically denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, respondents could prove their title to such property only through a decree of competent civil court, as revenue courts had no jurisdiction in that regard

District Collector had rightly directed respondents to seek declaration of title from a competent civil court

Petitioners' notion that second appeal to Commissioner Revenue (Appellate Court) was not competent, was misconceived

Under N.-W.F.P Tenancy Act, 1950 second appeal was competent if decree or order of the original court was not confirmed in appeal before District Collector

Question of title could only be determined by a competent civil court, therefore order of ejectment was set aside and that of District Collector was restored by High Court

Constitutional petition was allowed.

Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition directing ejectment of the defendant and ficrther ordered that the rent be paid from January, 2003 till the vacant possession handed over to the plaintiff

Defendant filed an appeal which failed to find favour and was dismissed

Defendant asserted that no issue qua default in payment of rent was framed, hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order for payment of rent could be passed along with the ejectment order

Validity

No issue regarding default in payment of rent was framed or could have been framed, as relationship of landlord and tenant was denied

Parties were not put to notice that evidence qua the rate of rent and non-payment thereof was to be adjudicated upon by the Rent Controller

Constitutional petition was accepted by the High Court and the impugned orders to the extent of liability to pay rent was set aside

Plaintiff was ordered to seek the remedy, if any, under the law.

Once a tenant, always a tenant.

Essential condition to avoid estoppel on denial of title in all ordinary cases is that if a tenant questions title of a person with whose permission he or his predecessor­-in-interest obtained possession as tenant, then tenant or his successor must surrender possession before questioning title of landlord or his successor

Exceptions to such general rule can be there but there can be no doubt about initial impact of such rule.

Lease instrument is a bilateral document in which, the rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant as stipulated between the parties are already spelt out; if it is not so, such document cannot be considered to have been duly executed in terms and the context of the law of contract.

Agreement to sell simpliciter cannot be equated to proprietary rights but where a formal and valid sale-deed has been executed and the ownership has been perfectly transferred to the purchaser, the rights of such purchaser are transformed from tenancy to ownership.

Person who enters on land by a lawful title and after same has ended, continues in possession without statutory right and without obtaining consent of the person then entitled to receive rent is said to be a tenant at sufferance as distinct from a tenant at will who is in possession with the landlords' consent.

Tenancy rights being valuable legal rights a party could approach Court in appropriate cases for protection of such rights.

Intention of the legislators for enacting such provisions, is to extend protection to the tenants to remain in occupation or the premises for a specified period and that such tenants who are entitled for a statutory notice should not be evicted prior to the period as provided in the relevant laws.

Failure to prove tenancy by documents in shape of rent receipts, security deposit receipt or expenditures incurred on repair, possession of applicant was held to be of trespasser and as such he was not entitled to relief in circumstances.

Payment of rent not made to admitted landlord under whom tenant was holding tenancy of premises in question but to a person who was in litigation with the landlord over ownership of tenanted premises

Tenant was liable to pay rent to landlord and even favourable decision in suit for specific performance in favour of third party would have no bearing on the result of ejectment suit

Judgments of Courts below ejecting tenant from premises for non-payment of rent were affirmed in circumstances.

Right of protection of sub-tenant under Rent Control law was not affected by the reason of Company having been liquidated

Direction of High Court to liquidator to take possession of tenanted premises and sub-tenant to occupy portion of it as agent of liquidator and to pay enhanced rent, held, was unwarranted in circumstances

Indian Companies Act (1 of 1956), S.446

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, S. 13.

Weakness of case of tenant cannot strengthen case of landlord seeking eviction for initial onus lies on landlord to substantiate the grounds put forth for ejectment of tenant and his case has to stand on its own legs.

Contention was that recovery of share at the enhanced rate of produce was to be interpreted so as to create a new tenancy

Held, orders of High Court and Supreme Court used expression "thereafter" and the word "therefore" respectively which were proof positive of the fact that the ejectment of the tenant was not to take place and the tenancy was extended by the addition of new term involving the increased rate of Batai.

Suit for ejectment of defendant from shops in his occupation as a tenant alongwith arrears of rent for specified period was decreed

Validity

Question as to whether payment of rent by defendant and acceptance of same by the plaintiffs after filing of ejectment suit created fresh tenancy between the parties and tantamounted to waiver of action of ejectment taken against defendant, rested on the intention of the parties, more particularly that of plaintiffs whether they intended to continue defendant as their tenant in the rented premises

Material on record led to irresistible conclusion that such animus was wanting in the facts of the case

Plaintiffs never intended to keep the tenancy with defendant alive, if that were so, nothing prevented them from renewing the tenancy and withdrawing the suit filed against defendant

Suit for ejectment of defendant was, thus, correctly decreed by the Courts below.

Such tenants had the locus standi to file suit as their legal character had been challenged by the alleged mortgagee H.M. Saya and Company Karachi v. Wazir Ali Industries.PLD 1969 SC 65 and 1983 SCMR 453 ref.

Application for change of tenancy during pendency of suit was allowed in circumstances.

Adna Malkans being admittedly in possession of land in question since long and cultivating it, in absence of any evidence on record to the effect that Aala Malkans had ever objected to such possession during all the years, it could safely be presumed that they impliedly, gave consent to the Adna Malkan to occupy and cultivate the land in question

Consent could be expressed or implied which could be gathered from the conduct, of parties

Aala Malkan at the most, would be entitled to Haq Malkana but could not deny or dispute the status of occupants as Adna Malkan of the land in question having been occupied by them with the implied consent of Aala Malkan

Adna Malkans in cultivating possession of Shamilat could neither be dispossessed nor ejected from such land.

Concept of possession. In the area of the law relating to landlord and tenant, the 'tenant as well as the landlord are both in possession of the demised premises, but their respective possession falls under different species of possession. The possession of the landlord is "mediate possession" and, that of the tenant what is described as "immediate possession".

Contention that according to admission made by the respondents that the petitioner was their tenant, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit notwithstanding the petitioner's plea that he was not a tenant and that he was in fact an owner through purchase

Petitioner on being asked to accept his position as a tenant stated that it was not his case that he was a tenant and if the leave was to be granted it should be on the basis of statement in that behalf by the respondents

Petitioner, held, could not be permitted to take inconsistent and self-contradictory pleas

Leave to appeal refused.

Contention that power of attorney to start proceedings against the tenant was not legally issued, as no attorney was authorized to file eviction application in the absence of a resolution passed by the Directors of the landlord Bank and that the power of attorney produced before the Rent Controller was neither formally proved nor the same could be lawfully received in evidence

Such contention had been raised before High Court and its finding was that said power of attorney had been received in evidence by the Rent Controller without any objection on the part of tenant and therefore, he could not be permitted to contend that same was not formally proved

Concurrent finding of fact was that petitioner was proved to be a defaulter in payment of rent

Relationship of landlord and tenant disputed-Persons claiming to be landlords relying on a rent note which did not relate to the property in dispute

Unless such persons were able to establish their title, they would not have any right to recover the rent.

Bona fide requirement-Landlord should establish that he bona fide requires premises, in addition to proving other ingredients referred in the relevant statute.

Tenant not liable to be evicted.

Expression `regularly' does not mean with exact or mathematical punctuality.

Interference by High Court with such findings held, was not justified.

Held, interference with findings by High Court was unjustified.

Requirement cannot be waived.

Notice of demand must be read in common sense point of view bearing in mind how it is understood by ordinary people.

Protection is not available to sub-lessees under statute.

What amounts to? It is well-settled that parting with possession meant giving possession to persons other than those to whom possession had been given by the lease and the parting with possession must have been by the tenant; user by other person is not parting with possession so long as the tenant retains the legal possession himself, or in other words there must be vesting of possession by the tenant in another person by divesting himself not only of physical possession but also of the right to possession. So long as the tenant retains the right to possession there is too parting with possession in terms of clause (b) of section 14(1).

Eviction on this ground is improper.

Execution-Subsequent events cannot be considered.

Petitioners, having themselves taken a definite stance of claiming to be owners by adverse possession and having denied tenancy under respondent or for that matter under his predecessor-in-interest, would stand precluded and estopped from claiming their position of tenancy.

Where defendant had been using additional land without being inducted into possession either by plaintiff or by owner of that land, he would be liable to pay damages for use and occupation of same to the owner and not to plaintiff even if plaintiff had paid rent for such additional land.