Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,1979
1. Default in payment of Rent
2. Defence–Striking off
3. Notice of new ownership
4. Default in payment–Ground of
5. Relationship of landlord and tenant — Denial of
Bona fide personal need–Choice of landlord–Contention of tenant was that since identical premises on first floor of building were lying vacant, landlord could safely occupy same and his need would be satisfied–Contention of tenant was repelled because that would be fettering landlord’s right to obtain such living space as desired by him–Landlord was to decide and choose any one of premises belonging to him for his use and occupation. PLJ 1999 Karachi 779
1. Default in payment of Rent–Ejectment of appellants by Rent Controller–Challenge to–Appellants in their evidence recorder by Rent. Controller, admitted that after payment of rent in month of July, 1993 to K (a legal heir) they have not sent any rent through money order to K–It is also admitted fact. that they did not send any notice to K stating that he has refused to accept rent and it is also admitted fact that, they did not send any notice to any of respondents to the effect that they have started depositing rent in court–It. is also admitted fact. that after death of A rent. was paid to K one of legal heirs of A and suddenly thereafter without any notice or tendering rent through money order both appellants started depositing rent in Misc. Rent cases–Held : Wilful default in payment of rent has substantially been proved through mouth of appellants themselves and wilful default in payment of rent is fully proved–Held further : Appellants have rightly been held to be wilful defaulters in payment of rent by Rent Controller–Dismissed in lirnine. PLJ 1998 Karachi 417
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court, inter alia, on the round that default, if any, could be technical only in nature as visualized by Supreme Court in Noor Muhammad v. Mehdi PLD 1991 SC 711. PLJ 1999 SC 861
2. Defence–Striking off– Rent Controller should not pass an order of penal nature under section 16(2) until and unless requirements, for passing such an order are fully met on the basis of material on record–Tentative rent order was passed for depositing rent at Rs. 1200/- per month–Subsequently, parties compromised and rate of rent was enhanced from Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 3500/- per month–It is further alleged that respondent refused to receive rent and refused to issue receipts, rent was tendered through money orders–Thus, by virtue of conduct of parties, original tentative rent order under S. 16(1) was no longer holding field as rate of rent was increased–In such circumstances, respondent was estopped from filing application u/S. 16(2) for enforcement of tentative rent orders which was passed when rent was Rs. 1200/- per month–Since that. rent order was no longer holding field as rent was increased, therefore, sending rent through money orders in circumstances of case is not in violation of tentative rent order passed by court–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1998 Karachi 461
3. Notice of new ownership — Service of notice – – Effect of — Appellant/landlord after having purchased property from evacuee transferee gave notice to tenants under Section 18 of the Ordinance, which admittedly was received by respondent, who had been paying rent to-Evacuee Trust Board and thereafter, was depositing rent in Court — Inspite of fact that title of appellant was challenged in court, yet sale-deed in his favour, unless cancelled, entitled him to recover rent — Appeals accepted and cases remanded to decide other issues. PLJ 1993 Karachi 242
4. Default in payment–Ground of–Tenancy is admitted by appellant as such burden lies on tenant to prove that he has not committed default in payment of rent–It is also admitted by him that he is in occupation of rented premises since 1968 and has not paid rent to Landlord since then–Reason for not paying rent to respondent as advanced by appellant is that no one came to collect rent and he did not know address of appellant and on receipt of notice he immediately deposited rent in court–it is not possible to believe that tenant did not know address of his Landlord–Even otherwise sub-section (3) of Section 10 provides that rent can be deposited with Controller within whose jurisdiction premises is situated–Tenant did deposit rented amount on 15.11.1992 which he could have done earlier–Held: Ejectment orders maintained on point of default–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 37
5. Relationship of landlord and tenant — Denial of — Dismissal of application — Challenge to — Admitted factual position is that appellant was recorded tenant of disputed plot which was purchased in open auction by one Z.A. Khan from Settlement Authorities — Appellant thus became statutory tenant but as he was in possession he constructed shops and rented out same to respondents falsely and fraudulently representing that he was owner thereof — His suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was dismissed — Held: Relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between parties — Held further: Since appellant is not owner of plot on which shops are constructed his application under Section 15 of Ordinance cannot be allowed — Appeals dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 300
Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need–Ground of- Evidence on record prima facie showed that requirement of landlord was according to law and was made in good faith–Tenant had not been able to produced any document or any other reliable evidence to show that landlord was owner of any other shop in that locality–Landlord, however, was not obliged to disclose as to what sort of business he intended to run in shop–Landlod has prerogative and discretion to determie and decided as to what he would do within premises and what sort of business he would run or how he would be using that premises–Court should ordinarily accept good faith against landlord–Tenant could not determine established prima facie case of bona fide personal need he was entitled ejectment of tenant–Tenant was directed to hand over vacant possession of premises to landlord. PLJ 1998 Karachi 660
Ejectment of tenant–Petition dismissed–Challenge to–Whether practice of lump sum payments of rent amounts to default–Land lord accepted delayed payment of rent by tenant at various occasions–No written tenancy agreement produced by either party–Held Under provisions of rent laws, a tenant is under a statutory duty to pay rent to land lord every month within 15 days of date fixed for payament of rent and in absence of any agreement as to date for payment of rent within 60 days of month when rent galls due for payment–Mere fact that landlady had been generous enough to accept accumulated rent for four months at a time would not mean that respondent was licenced to continue this practice at his own whims nor did it override statutory provisions of law–Appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 655
Ejectment of–Tenant–Personnal bonafide need–Ground of–Suit decreed–Challenge to–Nothing has come on record that respondent was having any other house or portion except first floor consisting of three bed-room and drawing-dining room where she could accommodate their children–Evidence adduced by respondent/landlady has gone unchallenged–Respondent/landlady cannot be deprived to have possession of premises for all time to come which once was rented out by her–Contention that respondent should have sought ejectment of another tenant has on merit and it is choice of owner/landlady to have any portion of her premises for her personal need–Held: There is nothing illegal or improper with judgment of learned Rent Controller–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 40
Expiry of period of sanction for reconstruction of property–Whether landlords would not be entitled to eject appellant as was there no sanction in law after its expiration–Reference is made to Rais Ahmad u. Mian Abdul Jubbar and another wherein it was held that landlord could obtain extention of sanction if expired subsequent to order of eviction–Held: Orders of ejectment are legal and no exception could be taken–Appeals dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 693
Mere pendency of a Civil suit regarding ownership of premises will not automatically stay the proceeding of rent case or rent appeal–If any party want stay of rent proceedings they can apply to the Court where the suit regarding ownership of property is pending for such a stay. PLJ 1996 Karachi 1086
Preamble-Indicative that Ordinance has been enforced to make effective provisions for regulation of relationsbetween landlord and tenant and to protect their interests in respect of rented premises within urban area. P L J 1981 Karachi 271
S- 16(1) & (2)–Ejectment application–Acceptance of–Appeal against–Acceptance of–Challenge to–Failure of appellants to prove their assertion initially made by them in their application for ejectment qua payment of rent by respondent No. 2 cannot lead to draw an adverse inference against them–Appellants could not be declined relief on ground that in earlier round of litigation finding on question of relationship of Land lord and tenant went against appellants in view of dismissal of suit filed by respondent No- 2 to establish her proprietary right in disputed premises–Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between appellants and respondent No- 2 would not turn the mischief of sub-letting into a valid transfer of premises–Deceased respondent No- 1 was original tenant–Respondent No- 2’s husband having been adjudged as subletee, Rent Controller had jurisdiction to pass order under Section 16(1) of Ordinance, 1979–Held : First. Appellate Court erred to interfere in order of ejectment passed in favour of appellants on improper appreciation of evidence on record–His findings suffered from mis-reading and non-reading of evidence–Appeal accepted with costs- PLJ 1997 SC 1648
S. & 15 (II)–Determination of fair rent–Application allowed on 31.8.1986 without mentioning period of fair rent–Period of fair rent would start from the data of order and not from the date of filing of application–Demand of enhanced rent from the data of application neither legal nor comes within the definition of default. PLJ 1997 Karachi 67
S. 10 & 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default–Ground of–Contention that words used in agreement for payment of rent in advance were against provisions of Ordinance–Word “advance” has no legal value as according to section 10 of Ordinance, what is important is date when rent becomes due–Submission is without any substance–Rent becomes payable in terms of mutual agreement between parties when there is such agreement, otherwise rent becomes payable on 10th of month next following month for which it is due–There was an agreement for payment of rent in advance–It was specifically pleaded that rent was payable in advance on first of month–Such averment was not disputed either in written statement or in evidence by appellant–Accordingly rent having not paid within 15 days of expiry of period prescribed by mutual agreement–Held: Appellant had incurred liability of eviction under Section 15 of Ordinance–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 405
S. 10(4)–Payment of rent–Burden of proving payment–If any landlord does not issue or acknowledge receipt in writing in cases of tenancy started after promulgation of Ordinance, then burden would be on tenants to prove payment of rent because it is choice of tenant to take risk of paying rent without getting receipt from landlord–In such cases where any landlord takes plea that rent has not been paid by tenant then sub-section (4) of section 10 leave no ambiguity that burden of proving payment of rent shall be discharged by tenant,’ by producing written acknowledgment, postal money order, receipt or receipts of Controller as case may be–Held: Tenant must deposit rent with Controller if landlord appears not to leave any proof of rent. PLJ 1996 Karachi 612
S. 10–Non-issuance of acknowledgement receipt by landlord–Legal procedure–In case landlord was not issuing any acknowledgement it was duty of tenant to have sent rent through postal money order and if it was refused then in that case teat could have been deposited with Rent Controller. PLJ 1997 Karachi 754
S. 10–Non-issuance of rent receipt by landlord–Onus on–Landlord was not issuing rent receipt from July 1991 and was demanding increase in of rent–Held : Onus to prove payment and non-issuance circumstances would be on appellant/tenant. PLJ 1997 Karachi 754 PLJ 1987 Kar. 208 rel.
S. 10–Tenant–Defaulter in payment of rent–Ejectment of–Appeal against–S. 10 of Rent Ordinance clearly states that rent in absence of any fixed date stated in agreement between landlord and tenant shall not be paid later than tenth of month next following month for which it is due–Tenancy agreement was not renewed between parties and as per para 4 of said agreement rent was payable by 10th of each calendar month which has not been paid and has been proved by respondent and appellant has failed to rebut respondent’s evidence–Appellant did not pay rent earlier also in time–Conduct of making delayed payment of rent by appellant does not entitle him to discretion to be exercised in his favour–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 137
S. 10–Tenant–Defaulter in payment of rent–Ejectment of–Appeal against-S. 10 of Rent Ordinance clearly states that rent in absence of any fixed date stated in agreement between_ landlord and tenant shall not be paid later than tenth of month next following month for which it is due–Tenancy agreement was not renewed between parties and as per para 4 of said agreement rent was payable by 10th of each calendar month which has not been paid and has been proved by respondent/landlady and appellant/tenant has failed to rebut respondent’s evidence–Appellant did not pay rent earlier also in time–Conduct of making delayed payment of rent by appellant does not entitle him to discretion to be exercised in his favour–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 484
S. 12Eviction of tenant-Default over a period of 3( years Contentionts-Alleged default was an agreement to adjust rent against payment of taxes. payment for sui gas and construction of water tank Possibility of spending money on property without obtaining receipts-Tenant doing so in accordance with agreement but without obtaining receipt.- Not be lieveable-Ejectment ordered. P L J 1981
S. 14 & 18–Ejectment application–Acceptance of–Appeal against-While deciding application u/s 14 of Ordinance, 1979 first and foremost duty cast on Rent Controller is to see that jurisdictional requirements are that (a) there should be relationship of landlord and tenant (b) that landlord/landlady should either be widow, or a minor whose both parents are dead or a salaried employee due for retirement within next six months or already retired or a person who is due to attain age of 60 years and (c) inform tenant through a notice in writing that in view of such contingency mentioned in paragraph (b) that he or she shall need building in occupation of tenant for personal use and in such notice also mentions delivery of vacant possession of building within such period as may be specified in notice which shall not be earlier than two months from receipt of notice–Once these jurisdictional requirements are established, in ordinary course, ejectment will follow–However, tenant through positive evidence, if establishes on record that case of landlord falls within proviso of S. 14(1) or subsection (2) of S. 14, ejectment of tenant must nut be allowed by Rent Controller–With this particular position of law, evidence led by parties is to be scrutinised by court–On behalf of respondent landlady her son examined himself as a witness and from evidence it will be seen that landlord has satisfied all jurisdictional requirements which are necessary in terms of S. 14 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979–Relationship of landlord and tenant is not under dispute–Notice u/s 18 and 14 was served on tenants and they admitted such fact that premises were demanded from tenants and such fact was also not in dispute–Only dispute which requires settlement is whether there is cabin and that cabin is a shop and whether that cabin is in possession of respondent–Building has only four shops and all four shops are rented to appellants–Cabin is not permanent structure nor it was built to be 5th shop and not mentioned in building plan, therefore, requirement of landlord could not be denied due to so called cabin–Held : Respondents has established her case for her requirements u/S. 14 and there is no other option but to order ejectment–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 380
S. 14 (I) (2)-Eviction petition on basis of personal requirement-Subsection (2) not to be isolated from subsection (1) of S. 14-Notice by landlady aged sixty years. that she required nonresidential premises occupied by tenant, for her personal use as she had no other nonresidential premises owned or possessed by herContention that S. 14 (2) was wide enough to cover case of landlady who admittedly owned and possessed residential building in same locality hence could not avail benefit of summary eviction under S. 14 (1)-Held : wider meaning sought to be put to subsection (2) would negate intent of legislating S. 14 (I) for benefit of certain class of persons. P L J 1981 Supreme Court 366
S. 14(4)–Tenant handed over Possession of property to landlord for reconstruction–Restoration of same dimension & location–Determination of–Appliction to–Dismissal of–Challenge to–It will be just and proper, if Rent Controller determines location and dimension of shop taken from appellant–Held : Courts are established to solve problems of public and not to create problems for them. PLJ 1996 Karachi 410
S. 14–Ejectment application by a widow–Whether a widow could not claim benefit of S. 14 if she acquired property after becoming widow–Question of–Section 14 of Ordinance 1979 simply used word “widow”,therefore, case of a widow could be covered by it irrespective of fact that whether she became widow before or after acquiring property. PLJ 1996 Karachi 546
S. 14Enquiry be Controller and hearing of tenant, impliedly intendedRent Controller seized of application u/s 14 is to decide what procedure is to be adopted which may vary from case to case depending upon circumstancesEnquiry to be held in a manner consistent with principles of natural justiceOrder passed without recording evidence. set aside in appeal and case remanded to decide question on further inquirry. P L J 1981 Karachi 271
S. 14–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Whether Respondents are entitled for ejectment of Appellants from demised premises U/S 14 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979–Question of–Testimony of respondent could not be shaken in cross-examination by appellant and no rebutting evidence is adduced to show that respondents were in occupation of any other non-residential building–Expression “Personal use” specified in Section 14 of Rent Ordinance would include use of owner or spouse or son or daughter–Contention that respondents have approached court for relief of possession long after attaining age of 60 years be deemed to have been waived their right of eviction–It has no merit and substance–Held: Impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of evidence–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 116
S. 14–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need–Ground of–Signature of landlady on application and her thumb impression on N.I.C. is of no significance in view of admission of appellant before Rent Controller–Power of attorney given by her in favour of her son is attested by Notary Public and bears signatures of landlady and witnesses alongwith death certificate of her husband–Notice as required under Sections 14 & 18 of Ordinance has also been filed and adduced in evidence–Evidence of son of landlady and her attorney has gone unchallenged–Contention of counsel for appellant is that appellant had paid Rs. 1,25,000/- as, Pugree, to Thekadar–None mention of amount in written statement clearly shows that this document has been produced later on to create defence–In any case, payment of pugree is not legal transaction which cannot be given protection at all–Held: Rent Controller after discussing evidence has rightly allowed ejectment application. PLJ 1998 Karachi 281
S. 14–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need–Ground of–Section 14 provides for a summary procedure for eviction of tenant in cases of landlord/landlady falling in category contemplated under subsection(1) thereof—Procedure under that sub section has to be initiated by serving tenant with a notice in writing informing him that landlord/landlady needs premises for personal use and requiring him to deliver vacant possession of premises within such time as may be specified in notice but not earlier than two months from receipt thereof–Such notice is mandatory and unless this notice is given to tenant proceedings for his eviction through Rent Controller cannot be taken–It is only on non-compliance of such notice that landlord/landlady may move Rent Controller for eviction of tenant–Landlady failed to prove service of requisite notice under section 14 on appellant–field : Application to Rent Controller for eviction of appellant was not maintainable. PLJ 1997 Karachi 763
S. 14–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bonafide need–Ground of–Evidence led by parties had indicated that not only son of deceased landlord who had retired from service needed premises in dispute to start his business, but even his widowed mother who was occupying part of premises in dispute needed same for personal bona fide use–Scope of inquiry in case under S. 14 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 would be limited to determination of fact whether landlady was a widow or circumstances which had been enumerated in said section which would include need of legal heirs of deceased who had retired from service–Widow and one of sons of deceased landlord having proved their personal bona fide need in respect of premises, they were entitled to get premises vacant–Appeal allowed. PLJ 1999 Karachi 727
S. 14-Tenant–Ejectment of–Refusal of–Challenge to–Clause (b) and (I) of Lease Agreement show that appellant has not only agreed to reniew lease for a further period of five years or more on terms and conditions to be mutually settled between parties, but has also agreed to waive his right to seek ejectment on ground of personal use–Held: It can safely be concluded that appellant had bartered away his personal rights for valuable consideration and for improvement of his property which was done by respondent having spent a substantial amount over Rs. 700000/- and there is no reason to interfere with findings of Rent Controller–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 51
S. 14–Tenant–Ejectment of–Rejection of application–Challenge to- -Two separate tenancies both of same character, i.e. residential or commercial, cannot be got vacated by recourse to section 14 of Ordinace–Held : Appellants being entitled to get only one shop vacated, appeal relatable to rent case earlier instituted, is to be accepted thereby exhausting right claimable under Section 14 of Ordinance and making it inexercisable in respect of other shop–Civil Appeal No. 64-K allowed and other appeal dismissed. PLJ 1991 SC 416
S. 15 & 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default in payment of rent–Ground of–It is well established law that it is statutory obligation of tenant to pay rent each month to landlord–Appellant failed even to prove that there was any agreement between parties to collect rent after every 6 or 7 months–Burden of proving this fact lies on appellant to show that he had paid rent but same was refused by respondent–Held : Appellant had committed wilful default in payment of rent–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 833
S. 15 & 5–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default–Ground of–Challenge to–Before present case respondent had filed a rent case for eviction of appellant on ground of default in payment of rent, being Rent case No. 16/85, but, during pendency of that case, parties entered into a new tenancy agreement whereby rate of rent was revised from Its. 3500/- per month to Rs. 4,250/- per month–In view of new agreement, respondent withdrew aforesaid rent agreement–Later on appellant took position that new tenancy agreement was not binding and insisted on paying rent at old rate–Respondent again approached for eviction of appellant–Held : Appellant by its conduct having made respondent act upon new agreement cannot now be heard saying that said agreement was not binding on it–Appellant instead of Rs. 4,250 per month paid rent at old rate of Its. 3500/- per month–Default in payment of rent is apparent–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 760
S. 15 (2) (v)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Refusal of–Challenge to–Whether tenant was liable to eviction on ground of nuisance–Question of–Nuisance as a concept has not been defined in Ordinance, but speaking broadly, it includes any hurt or injury or something which annoys or hurts or which is offensive to senses or obtrusive in some way–In this sense, denial of relationship of landlord and tenant, where admittedly one existed, would constitute nuisance–However, Section 15(2) (v) contemplates only such activities as are causing nuisance to neighbours–In this case, landlady is also a neighbour of tenant–Held: In peculiar circumstances of this case, tenant is also liable to be evicted on ground of nuisance–Eviction ordered on grounds of bonafide personal requirement, material impairment of value or utility of premises and nuisance. PLJ 1994 Karachi 325
S. 15 (2) (vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bonafide need–Contention that Respondent is a school teacher and her husband is doing a job–Appellant has not produced any proof of it–No such suggestion was made in cross examination– PLJ 1996( Karachi) 156
S. 15 (2), (xii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–personal bonafide need–Contention that rented premises are not suitable for, boutique business as entire area is surrounded by 22 motor workshops–Helds: It has come on record quite unchallenged and unrebutted, that area in question is well known for tailoring shops and ladies frequently visit these shops–There are more than 14 tailoring shops 3 are boutiques, two of which are being run by ladies–Appeal dismissed– PLJ 1996( Karachi) 156 1984, CLC 71, 1993 CLC 505, 1993 CLC 270, 1993 CLC 2272, 1993 MLD 399, 1993 MLD 386, 1991 MLD 1377, 1993 MLD 876, 1994 CLC 1875, PLD 1994 Karachi 209 ref
S. 15 and 10–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default–Ground of–Appeal against ejectment order–Rent was sent through money order for the month of September and October on 14-11-1998, wfien land lord refused to receive money order same was deposited in court–Whether it is default or not ?–Question of–When oral evidence is contrary to documentary evidence documentary evidence is taken to be conclusive–Learned Rent Controller ignored provisions of S. 10–Findings given by him is contrary to documentary evidence as such learned Rent Controller has come to a erroneous conclusion while passing impugned order which is set aside appeal is allowed–Held : No default has been committed–Appeal allowed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 208
S. 15 Tenant–Ejectment of–Refusal of–Challenge to–Conversion of use of . property from residential to commercial–Ground of–Although approved plan of building clearly showed premises as residential, yet appellant No. 1, in his cross-examination, has admitted that on date of gift in appellant’s favour, premises was being used by respondents as commercial premises–Held: Neither previous landlord having been examined on this question nor there being any explanation for not producing him, this ground must fail. PLJ 1993 Karachi 33
S. 15(2) (vii) read with S. 15-A–Ejectment application–Acceptance of–Appeal against–If a power of attorney holder is empowered to file unspecified cases and applications that would impliedly mean and include rent cases and rent applications–No question was put to respondents pertaining to validity of power of attorney–If pith and substance of evidence is clear and leads to a particular fact, then technicalities of English grammar which do not govern judicial proceedings can be ignored–It has been specifically pointed out by land ladies that they need premises for establishing maternity home and hospital–Their such requirement is supported by evidence on record–Appellant failed to establish any cogent grounds regarding personal need of land ladies which was established by them in their evidence–If crafty landlords obtain order of possession on ground of personal need, do not occupy and convert premises for such need, tenant can apply for restoration of premises–Provisions of S. 15-A in this respect are mandatory and provide complete check on landlord–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 1044
S. 15(2) (vii) read with S. 15-A–Ejectment application–Acceptance of–Appeal against–If a power of attorney holder is empowered to file unspecified cases and applications that would impliedly mean and include rent cases and rent applications–No question was put to respondents pertaining to validity of power of attorney–If pith and substance of evidence is clear and leads to a particular fact, then technicalities of English grammar which do not govern judicial proceedings can be ignored–It has been specifically pointed out by land ladies that they need premises for establishing maternity home and hospital–Their such requirement is supported by evidence on record–Appellant failed to establish any cogent grounds regarding personal need of land ladies which was established by them in their evidence–If crafty landlords obtain order of possession on ground of personal need, do not occupy and convert premises for such need, tenant can apply for restoration of premises–Provisions of S. 15-A in this respect are mandatory and provide complete check on landlord–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 1044
S. 15(2)(ii) read with Section 8–Tenant–Ejectment of–Refusal of–Challenge to–Default in payment of rent–Ground of–Rent Controller can determine fair rent on application of landlord under Section 8 of Ordinance–Power to increase rent is vested with Rent Controller, and landlord cannot unilaterally increase rent despite order passed by taxation authorities for enhancement of taxes–Rent cannot remain stationary for ever and by passage of time, due to rise in cost of construction/repair charges and imposition of new taxes, reasonable increase in rent, as permissible under law, is always justified but for this purpose, proceedings shall have to be initiated before Rent Controller under Section 8 of Ordinance–Held: No default was committed by respondent and finding of Rent Controller is perfectly correct, to which no exception can be taken. PLJ 1993 Karachi 81
S. 15(2)(ii)–Ejectment of tenant–Appeal against–Ground of default–Contention that on refusal to accept rent by respondent appellant sent rent from May to July, 1988, through money order which was also refused, then he deposited rent in court on 4.9.1988–Appellant failed to prove that he had tendered rent to respondent and photostat copy of money order coupon, which did not bear any endorsement from postman with regard to refusal, also remained unproved–Grace period in absence of agreement for date of payment being sixty days, according to Section 15(2)(ii) of Ordinance, stood expired–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 64
S. 15(2)(ii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default–Ground of–Contended that amount of security deposited by him with landlord could have been adjusted towards arrears of rent for disputed period–Tenancy agreement between parties showed that fixed/security deposit could only be returned to tenant when he would hand over vacant possession of premises after adjustment of amount of damages, if any caused to the premises but such security amount could not be adjusted towards arrears of rent–Tenant who failed to pay or tender rent was rightly ordered to be ejected on ground of default. PLJ 1999 Karachi 106
S. 15(2)(ii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default–Ground of–Tenant on refusal of rent collector appointed by landlord to receive rent tendered rent through pay orders which remained undelivered due to some reasons–Tenant, deposited rent in Court, but Rent Controller ordered ejectment of tenant on ground of default in payment of rent–Payment of rent having been proved through evidence on record, judgment of Rent Controller based on conjectures and surmises was set aside. PLJ 1999 Karachi 567
S. 15(2)(iii) & (vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need properly applied at trial level–Tenant had assailed ejectment order passed against him on grounds of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide need of landlord contending that examinations-in-chief of parties through their affidavits-in-evidence, were signed before Oath Commissioner–Normally, affidavits for immediate use in Court were to be sworn in either in Court or before officer authorised by Court to administer oath–Deposition/cross-examination was recorded without administration of oath and parties were not recalled nor re-affirmed- Evidence having not been legally recorded, Appellate Court had rightly remanded case to Trial Court for recording legal evidence and for passing appropriate order. PLJ 1998 Karachi 693
S. 15(2)(iii) (a)–Sub-tenancy–Question of–Landlord had claimed that shop in question was sublet by original tenant without his consent- enant had deposed that alleged sub-tenant was his son-in-law and also his business associate–Alleged sub-tenant who was a party in ejectment proceeding was also examined in Court and he re-affirmed statement of original tenant–Subletting not established. PLJ 1998 Karachi 710
S. 15(2)(iii)(a)–Tenancy under name of General Rubber Company–Tenants changed their name to General Trading Company–Subleting rented premises by tenant company–Allegations of–Appellant rented tenement to General Rubber Trading Company–Same was converted into private limited company and got same registered as such Memorandum of Articles of Association has been placed on record–Partners have only become its Directors otherwise neither its character nor status has changed–Admittedly, Managing Director of appellant has never denied to consent to conversion of partnership into Limited Company nor filed any affidavit in evidence or appeared before court–Moreover, conversion took place in year, 1977 and according to appellant he came to know in 1983, but filed rent case in July, 1985 after gap of 8 years–This shows that appellant after loosing first round of litigation has attempted to create false ground of sub-letting–Otherwise landlord was regularly withdrawing rent from court–Held : Appellant has entirely failed to prove case of eviction on any of grounds. PLJ 1998 Karachi 425
S. 15(2)(iii)(a)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Whether acceptance of rent by respondents from appellant after creation of partnership concern from proprietorship concern would amount to waiver of rights of respondents to evict appellant–Question of–Respondents were never informed by appellant or by co-partners that tenancy of proprietorship concern was changed to partnership concern and at no time request was made to respondents even for change of receipt in name of partnership firm–It has also not been denied in cross-examination by appellant that respondents for first time came to know in October, 1986 that partnership was created in place of sole proprietorship concern–Appellant admitted that cheque for month of October, 1986 was sent but it was refused and was returned to appellant on ground that cheque was issued by partnership concern and not by proprietorship concern–Held: There is no waiver or acquiescence on part of respondent. PLJ 1996 Karachi 189
S. 15(2)(iii)(a)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Whether appellant, the original tenant, by his entering into Partnership business with his two brothers created tenancy right/interest of other partners in premises–Question of–Appellant in rebuttal has not produced partnership deed to show that no right, title and interest was created in favour of co-partners in respect of tenancy right of premises and it exclusively remained with him–Held: Mere fact that appellant also remained in possession of premises alongwith his co-partners would not mean that there has not been contravention or breach of terms of lease Deed or provisions of section 15(2)(iii)(a). PLJ 1996 Karachi 189
S. 15(2)(iii)(a)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Whether rent deposited 1y partnership concern would not amount to due tender by appellant according to law–Question of–It has been admitted by appellant that after refusal of rent by respondent, appellant did not deposit rent in proprietorship concern–Rent tendered by one of partners of partnership concern would be a rent from business of partnership concern and not from proprietorship concern. Held: Appellant was defaulter under law–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996
S. 15(2)(iii)(a)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Whether rent deposited 1y partnership concern would not amount to due tender by appellant according to law–Question of–It has been admitted by appellant that after refusal of rent by respondent, appellant did not deposit rent in proprietorship concern–Rent tendered by one of partners of partnership concern would be a rent from business of partnership concern and not from proprietorship concern. Held: Appellant was defaulter under law–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 189
S. 15(2)(iii)(a)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge to–Subletting–Ground of–It is established on record that appellant, some time before institution of case, had handed over possession of demised premises to one Nasim and is realising rent from him–Held: There is no reason to interfere with findings of Rent Controller on issue of subletting of demised premises–Appeal dismissed. PIJ 1993 Karachi 473
S. 15(2)(iii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Subletting–Ground of–Shops which were let out to tenant in his personal name, were handed over by tenant on lease to private companies which had separate legal entity—Such leasehold rights having been assigned by tenant to private companies without permission of landlord constituted sub-letting—Subletting proved–Held : Tenant was liable to be ejected on that ground. PLJ 1998 Karachi 861
S. 15(2)(v)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Refusal of–Challenge to–Nuisance–Ground of–Under Section 15(2)(v) of Ordinance, a tenant can be evicted if he has indulged in such activities as are causing nuisance to neighbours–In this case, it is alleged by appellant that his tenant has become a nuisance for him and his family members–Appellant has not stated that respondent became nuisance for neighbours–Held: Even if evidence of appellant is accepted, it would not make out a ground for eviction in terms of Section 15(2)(v) of Ordinance. PLJ 1993 Karachi 305
S. 15(2)(vi) read with Section 15(4)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Appeal against–Reconstruction of building–Ground of–Contention that on date of filing of rent case, approved plan was not in existence, therefore, eviction on basis of said approval was not warranted by law–Held: Appellant will be entitled to be put in possession of shops (after reconstruction) at same location but quantum of area of shops shall be in discretion of Rent Controller to be determined after taking into consideration location and type of new building and needs of appellant who is running a restaurant in said shops–Execution postponed till decision of appeals of other tenants. PLJ 1992 Karachi 442 PLD 1986 Kar. 393, PLD 1972 Lah. 711, 1981 SCMR 782, 1985 CLC 1669;1981 SCMR 924, 1983 SCMR 391 and PLJ 1989 Peshawar 66 (DB) ref.
S. 15(2)(vii)–Bona fide personal need–Essentials–Landlord who required premises in good faith for his occupation and use or for occupation and use of his spouse and children and his families, had to show that he required premises in good faith and not on a mere whim or fancy–If such factors could be established by landlord, there would be no need of any further enquiry as to whether premises was too large for landlord’s need–Sufficiency and insufficiency of accommodation desired by landlord was a matter of individual taste and choice with which Court of law was not to interfere–What had to be seen was whether landlord had approached Court with clean hands and with bona fide intent– PLJ 1999 Karachi 779
-S. 15(2)(vii)–Bona fide personal need–Need for grandchildren–Jurisdiction–Contention that word “child” appearing in S. 15(2)(vii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 did not include grandchildren of landlord–Validity–If a landlord had married children living with him, it would be unjust to contend that need of his grandchildren could be disregarded–Interpretation of S. 15(2)(vii) to the effect that it excluded grandchildren of landlord who were living with him, would not only be illogical, but would be quite burdensome and harsh as far as bona fide need of landlord and his children living with him was concerned- PLJ 1999 Karachi 779
S. 15(2)(vii)–Eject of tenant–Appeal against–Personal requirement of landlady–Ground of–Whether personal need was proved–Question of–Respondent landlady living abroad wanted to come back alongwith her two grown-up daughters and a minor son with intention to provide them proper education and up-bringing her children according to their own culture, custom and traditions and to get suitable match for her marriageable daughters–Her attorney was examined and he has supported contentions of landlady–It cannot be said that landlady has filed rent case with ntalafide intention–Very facts on face of it speak of good faith of landlady–Held: Respondent through her attorney, has proved her bonafide requirement in good faith–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 56
S. 15(2)(vii)–Tenant.–Ejectment of-Bona fide personal need–Ground of–In order to prove bona fide. landlord who required premises, was to he examined on oath and then subject to cross-examination to verify authenticity of such need–Landlord had to give details of requirements and grounds as to why that, particular premises was suitable–Only attorney of landlord was examined who had not given any detail of business to be carried out in premises in question and suitability of premises for the same–None of the respondents was examined on oath to prove their bona fide need–For getting premises vacated for bona fide need onus lay on landlord–Rent Controller was not justified to hold that. landlord had proved his bona fide need. PLJ 1997 Karachi 986
S. 15(2)(vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of :Personal bona fide need–Ground of- Looking at the number of landlord’s family and accommodation which was already in his possession, it could be made out that same was insufficient for his personal use and he needed further accommodation to enable him to shift from Government quarter after his retirement from service–Personal bona fide need of landlord had fully been established in circumstances PLJ 1998 Karachi 791
S. 15(2)(vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Bona fide personal need–Ground of–Good faith–Proof–Good faith in requiring premises for personal bona fide need, was to be established on record as sine qua non before passing of ejectment order by Rent Controller–Until and unless landlord establishes on record with cogent evidence that premises in question was needed bona fidely for purpose stated in ejectment application, ejectment of tenant could not be granted–It will be incumbent upon landlord to establish good faith through evidence which is essential requirement for ejectment of tenant relating to personal need–Landlord has failed to establish his need or requirement–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 1021
S. 15(2)(vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default. in paymment of rent–Ground of–No written agreement. of tenancy existed between parties, but landlord in ejectment application as well as in affidavit-in-evidence had specifically asserted that there was mutual agreement between parties according to which rent of premises was payable on or before 5th of each due month which fact was not denied by tenant—Mutual oral agreement between parties which was not denied by tenant—in view of mutual oral agreement with regard to mode of payment. of rent, rent of premises was to be paid on or before 5th of each due month which meant. that grace period for payment. of rent ‘as 15 days and rent. of each month was to be paid on or before 20th of each due month. but tenant, had paid rent beyond that. period–Tenant, committed wilful default and was liable to be ejected. PLJ 1997 Karachi 873
S. 15(2)(vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge to–Appellants have admitted that respondent is living in a rented house–It is on record that husband of respondent, has severed all his connections with his ex-employer in Abu Dhabi–It is inalienable right of an owner to use his property in any way he likes–Respondent has stood test of cross-examination and her evidence has not been shattered–Held: Respondent has been able to prove her requirement of demised premises being bonafide–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1994 Karachi 356
S. 15(2)(vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need—Essential ingredients–Landlord had option to seek ejectment for personal use, but personal use was clipped with words “good faith”–In order to ascertain whether “good faith” was established Court had to probe record and to find out whether honest intentions were available and spelled out from record–Apart from honesty it was also to be ascertained that there was absence of malice and absence of design to defraud or to seek an • unconscionable advantage=-If honest belief was lacking and good faith of landlord was not established through record, which was condition precedent to get order of ejectment as personal bona fide use—Rent Controller may dismiss ejectment application of landlord. PLJ 1998 Karachi 877
S. 15(2)(vii)-Tenant-Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need–Ground of Prerogative of landlord to decide which shop was required by him fen personal need–Mere fact that during pendency of ejectment petition in respect of shop in question one shop was given on rent by landlord, would not disentitle him from his personal nerd–Tenant having failed to prove any mala fides on the part of landlord and landlord leaving established genuineness of his need. tenant. was liable to be ejected as he wanted to start his own business. PLJ 1997 Karachi 873 1992 MLD 1685; 1993 CLC 412: PLD 1982 SC 465; 1992 SCMR 1152; PLD 1990 SC 394; 1991 CLC 1047; 1995 SCMR 1973 330; SCMR 185; 1968 SCMR 1087 and 1986 SCMR 1981 ref.
S. 15(2)00–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge to–Default in payment of rent–Ground of–There is confusion about date of commencement of each month’s tenancy as per respondent’s evidence–Tenancy appears to be commencing from first of each calendar month–There is no documentary evidence about payment of pugree of Rs. 3000/- and appellant has produced receipts which show that he has paid rent till 18.2.1987–Disputed period of default is from February 1987 till 30.6.1987–There is no documentary proof about payment of rent for disputed period–Appellant failed to prove that he had sent rent for this period through money order–Practice of payment of accumulated rent was not pleaded in written statement, and even if such practice is established, it does not place appellant in an advantageous position–Held: No special circumstances have been pleaded or proved to entitle appellant to discretion being exercised in his favour–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1992 Karachi 436 PLJ 1981 SC 214, 1986 SCMR 587, 1981 SCMR 93, PLD 1982 Karachi 188, PLD 1965 Lah. 23, PLD 1971 Kar. 747, PLD 1985 Karachi 47, 1986 CLC 1487, 1985 MLD 1151 and 1991 CLC 1729 discussed.
S. 15(2)–Word “requirement” used in clause (vi) of subsection (2) of S. 15 of Rent Ordinance–Would it mean that requirement should be bona fide and in absence of same ejectment could not be ordered by Rent Controller–Only requirement in case of reconstruction of property would be production of sanction and approved plan of reconstruction of building and Rent Controller has to be satisfied as to building plan and sanction produced to be genuine and validly issued by competent abthority–There is no question of proving good, faith on part of landlord in case possession of property is sought. on ground of rcconstruition of building on site–Held: Question of good faith would not be relevant for deciding ejectment application on ground of reconstruction of building under provision of Rent Ordinance. PLJ 1996 Karachi 693
S. 15(4)–Restoration to possession of same area in new building–Protection of tenant–Learned counsel for landlord stated that tenant could be accommodated in said shop or shops of near about area by removing walls in between pillars and beams, therefore, spirit and object of provisions of law would not be flouted or contravened and apprehensions of tenant are ill founded–It could be safely said that landlords would so far as possible, accommodate tenant in possession of such area in new building as possible and would not prejudice tenant in respect of his rights under law. PLJ 1996 Karachi 693
S. 15-A–In rent matters safeguards for tenants–Where landlord obtains possession of rented premises on ground of personal requirement and fails either to occupy same or relets it to any person other than tenant, then tenant has been given a right to approach Rent Controller for punishing landlord–Rent Controller under S. 15-A of Ordinance may put tenant back into possession of same premises. PLJ 1999 Karachi 705
S. 15–Bona fide personal need of landlord–Attraction of principle of res judicata (S. 11 CPC)–Where some earlier case against tenant was filed on same ground, there could not be a bar for seeking eviction on same ground as principle of res judicata was not attracted. PLJ 1999 Karachi 705
S. 15–Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), S. 12(2)–Relationship of landlord and teant–Question of=-Suit for specific performance on basis of agreement to sell was pending between landlord and appellant, son of tenant–Prior to decision of civil suit, Rent Controller ordered ejectment of tenant–During pendency of execution application by landlord, appellant moved an application under S. 12(2) C.P.C. which was dismissed by Rent Controller=-Status–Appellant did not apply to Rent Controller for joining him as one of parties–Question of title between appellant and landlord was yet to be decided by Court–Appellant could not be allowed to protract proceedings by seeking aid of provisions contained in S. 12(2) of C.P.C. on baseless allegations of fraud and misrepresentation–Such an application having been filed to abuse process of Court, Rent Controller had rightly dismissed application. PLJ 1999 Karachi 717
S. 15–Ejectment of tenant on ground of personal need–Acceptance of ejectment petition by Rent Controller–Challenge to–It has been proved that except two shops, entire building of respondent/landlord is being used for educational purposes -It is also on record that though school is managed by registered society, wife of respondent/landlord who is secretary of society is in fact running entire affairs of school–It, is for her to decide to expand educational activity and if she so decides and additional space is required for that purpose, respondent/landlord is entitled to get vacant possession of demised premises–It is evident I hat if space included in shops becomes part of school that. will definitely provide more accommodation and convenience to school–Held : Rent Con! roller was right in holding that. demised premises are required in good faith by respondent–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 451
S. 15–Ejectment–Appellants have got clear and valid title over disputed property–Relationship of landlord and tenant exists between parties–Since, respondents admittedly did not pay any rent, even after service of notice, default stands proved–Held : Respondents are not entitled to any concession or right to prove justification of their default in payment of rent–Appeal allowed with direction to respondents to put appellants in vacant possession within 4 (four) months. PLJ 1996 Karachi 419
S. 15–Plea of subletting–Proof–Landlord had failed to show that out of two tenements which had been subletted by tenant and what rent was being realised by tenant for alleged subletting–Rent Controller had ordered ejectment of tenant–There was no lawful evidence in support of pleas raised by landlord, except pleadings and same could not take place of evidence, and, as such, no subletting was proved by landlord–Ejectment order passed by Rent Controller was set aside. PLJ 1999 Karachi 826
S. 15–Subletting–Where landlord had alleged subletting and accepted rent from tenants without protest for quite a long time, allegation of subletting was not proved–Onus to prove such plea is on landlord and not on tenant– PLJ 1999 Karachi 826
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Claim of landlord was about shop situated on plot No. E-10, eviction by court was directed only for same–Taking advantage of fact that both these shops were connected whether respondent/landlord can seek eviction from shop situated on plot No. E/11 too on basis of aforesaid order when in fact plot No. E/11 was in the name of son of landlord–Question of–On basis of ejectment application, Rent Controller’s order and order in appeal respondent is entitled to claim eviction of appellant from shop situated on plot No. E/10 only and not that situated on plot No. E/11–Since case of appellant is that by removing common wall between two shops situated on plot No. E/10 and E/11, he converted these into one joint shop, respondent would be entitled to eviction of appellant only from that portion of said joint shop as is situated on plot No. E/10 and not from portion on plot E/11–Case is remanded to determine whether any portion of shop from which appellant is sought to be evicted is situated on plot No. 11/E as alleged, for this purpose parties will be allowed to produce evidence–Case remanded–Orders accordingly. PLJ 1998 Karachi 195
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Contention that Applicant/ Respondent alleged that appellants have un-authorisedly occupied store-room attached with shop, Rent application was not maintainable–Rent case would not have been maintainable to the extent of said godown, but since opponent/appellant denied said position Rent case is maintainable in view of admission of opponent regarding tenancy of entire premises as one unit–Held: Finding of Rent Controller does not call for any interference. PLJ 1996 Karachi 177
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Contention that approval of site plan has been withdrawn, Appellants cannot be ejected from premises due to non-execution of agreement by landlord with tenant before its approval–Withdrawal of approval of plan has already been declared as illegal–Since plan is already got approved and work has also been started at site, there can be no doubt in bonafide of landlord in erecting new building in place of old one–Held: Finding of Rent Controller is maintainable. PLJ 1996 Karachi 177
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Default and Personal bonafide need–Grounds of–There was default in payment of rent from April, 1988, till filing of a case which was fully established–Contention that respondent had other equally suitable premises available for his purpose and that he was not entitled to obtain vacant possession for use of a limited company which is a distinct person in law–It was upto respondent to choose a place where he wishes to conduct his business and, secondly, because “Conipany” for which respondent required premises in question is infact a sole proprietory concern–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 597
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Default–Ground of–Whether an agreement of sale entitles tenant not to pay rent–Question of–Even if it is accepted for arguments sake that an agreement of sale was in existence, still appellant was bound to pay rent–Held: Since appellant failed to pay rent from July 1984, finding of Rent Controller on issue of default is not open to exception. PLJ 1990 Karachi 442
S. 15–Tenant-Ejectment of–Appeal against–If a landlord seeks ejectment on ground of personal use, to prove his good faith is that he should show that he requires same for his own use or use of his child and that they are not gain fully employed in any other vocation–Where landlord intends to extend his business, situation would be different as in such case his being gainfully engaged in very trade or business would not come in his way in seeking ejectment–Respondent has been able to establish fact that his son is not gainfully employed or engaged in any vocation at Canada and thus the obvious inference would be that he would want to start business–There appears to be no denial to wish of respondent who is a retired police officer to start his own business alongwith his son in demised premises–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 167
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Personal need–Ground of–Respondent is a practising advocate and he has testified that disputed premises is required by him for purpose of his office–Appellant has controverted this fact by stating that respondent owns number of properties–There is, however, nothing on. record to substantiate it–Held: Statement of respondent on issue of personal need, appears to be consistent and to some extent, it gets support from appellant himself–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1990 Karachi 442
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Whether order under section 16(1) could be made by Rent Controller without holding an inquiry–Rationale behind this Section–Most of landlords move applications u/s 16 of Ordinance by claiming much more higher rent than actual rent and Rent Controllers usually pass routine order by directing tenant to deposit arrears of rent due within stipulated period without holding any inquiry which is requirement of section 16 of Ordinance–As the consequences of non-compliance of such orders are always very harming i.e. striking of defence–Holding of summary inquiry is obligatory when there is dispute between parties on rate of rent–In all such cases if learned Rent Controller passes order, as has been usually observed, that tenant should deposit rent at rate demanded by landlord, but landlord should withdraw only that rent which is admitted by tenant, then such order may not be proper if judged on anvil of equity because firstly it put tenant under burden of that heavy rent which he was not bound to pay and secondly tenant is put under mental torture that if he failed to comply with order, his defence would be struck off–Held: All such defective orders passed U/S. 16(1) of Ordinance which do not reflect existence of any inquiry, would be unlawful–Held further Although no penalty has been mentioned against landlord if he violates order passed u/s. 16(3) of Ordinance, yet his conduct would be fully exposed whether he was interested to receive rent at proper time or he was interested only to knock out tenant technically who had otherwise best case on merits. PLJ 1996 Karachi 612
S. 15—Tenant–Ejectment of–Default–Ground of–Contention that words used in agreement for payment of rent in advance were against provisions of Ordinance–Word advance has no legal value as according to section 10 of Ordinance, what is important is date when rent becomes due–Submission is without any substance–Rent becomes payable in terms of mutual agreement, otherwise rent becomes payable on 10th of month next following month for which it is due–There was an agreement for payment of rent in advance–Accordingly rent having not paid within 15 days of expiry of period prescribed by mutual agreement, appellant had incurred liability of eviction u/S. 15 of Ordinance–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 445
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default–Ground of–Mere fact that suggestion was made by counsel of tenant that rent was remitted to landlady in July, 1991 for four months, would not disprove statement of landlady on oath that rent was not paid to her from January, 1991 to July, 1991–No evidence ocular or documentary was available to rebut testimony of landlady with regard to non-payment of rent for specified period–Tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent. PLJ 1999 Karachi 722
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge of–Default–Ground of–Whether appellant has committed a wilful and deliberate default in payment of rent–Question of–It has been proved by respondent/landlord that rent from January till August was not paid/tendered by appellant/tenant–Rent for month of September and October was deposited in the name of dead person would not be due tender in eye of law–Held: Appellant was defaulter–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 110
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need–Ground of–Family of landlady consisted of fifteen members and portion in her possession consisted of two rooms, one latrine, one bathroom and small courtyard and, as such, same was not sufficient for her family–Portion in occupation of landlady was in dilapidated condition and said fact was not challenged by tenant—-Landlady had proved her requirement of PLJ 1999 Karachi 722
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bonafide need–Ground of- Evidence on record had proved that landlord had not sought eviction of tenant for a wish or on whim–Cogent reason was given and good faith was apparent in demand for ejectment–Order of ejectment was upheld. PLJ 1999 Karachi 705
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal need–Ground for–Mere fact that in eviction petition respondent/landlord did not state nature of business which would be carried on in shop premises would not negate his personal requirement in good faith which has not be satisfactorily challenged in cross examination of respondent and his sou–lt is not necessary that person requiring shop premises should also state in eviction petition as to nature of business which would be opened or would be carried out by him in case possession is given to him; land lord Ias to prove his personal requirement in good faith only–It is true that there is a difference in degree of proof with regard to personal requirement in case of commercial premises to one in respect of residential premises–Landlord is fully corroborated by his son on point of personal requirement and said fact has not been satisfactorily challenged in cross examination–Mere fact that landlord’s son is B.Com. therefore he could not run general provisions store has no substance and merit–‘Tenant cannot dictate landlord to adjust his son in a particular business or job as it would be prerogative of landlord–So also of his son to chose vocation as to which trade or profession would be suitable–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 472
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Prayer for–landlord and tenant–Relationship of–Denial of–Challenge to–Contention that learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction due to non-existence of relationship of landlord tenant–Appellant has tried to take advantage of misdiscription of Respondent in legal notice–Where as appellant himself admitted in reply to legal notice that he is tenant–Appellant in his written statement and cross-examination admitted that he is tenant of Respondent–Held, There is relationship of landlord and tenant between parties and Rent Controller had jurisdiction– PLJ 1996( Karachi) 156
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Suit decreed–Challenge to–Whether respondent requires premises in question in good faith for personal bonafide use–Question of–Landlady has decided to stay in her own property rather than in rented premises–No legal obstacle could come in her way–Choosing of premises for personal bonafide need was prerogative of landlady–Tenent could not have option to choose as to which place and premises would be suitable for landlady–Against false plea of a landlord for vacation of rented premises on ground of personal bonafide need, right of a tenant is protected under S. 15-A of Ordinance–Held, impugned order is rightly passed–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 127
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment on ground of default–Challenge to–Respondent/landlord stated on oath that he did not receive any rent from January, 1991–According to appellant/tenant he paid rent in advance upto 14.5.1992, but no receipt was issued to him–It is improbable that in context of strained relations which existed between parties for quite sometime appellant would pay so much rent in advance without insisting for receipts. PLJ 1998 Karachi 451
S. 15–Tenent–Ejectment of–Petition for–Personal bonafide requirement for use of respondent who was engaged to her cousin and her marriage was held up for want of accommodation–Ground for–Points involved, whether appellant was duly served with notice of ejectment–Whether learned Controller was right in directing eviction of appellant from demised premises ex parte–Rent Controller was fully satisfied with mode of service and he had recorded his satisfaction after examining process server on oath–Similarly, he would be free not to follow technical provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 –Held: There is no merit in contention raised on behalf of appellant that he has been condemned unheard–Held further, ‘ If a party chooses to remain away from court proceedings and to take advantage of his own negligence and indifference towards court, law would not come to his rescue–Appeal dismissed- PLJ 1995 Karachi 152
S. 15–Tenent–Ejectment of–Premises required by appellant for use of her husband–Possession of premises had been handed over to another person–Grounds for–Appellants husband a retired person wants to set up a small industry–It is an undeniable right of appellant to increase her family income–Held: Appellant has succeeded in establishing her case of personal requirement–Possession of disputed plot has been handed over by respondent to his dealer without written consent of landlord–Held further Respondent is liable for eviction–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1995 Karachi 146
S. 16 (1) Tenant–Ejectment of–Defence–Striking of–Challenge to–Whether no order under Section 16 (1) could be made when ejectment is sought on only ground of subletting–Question of–Held: A bare reading of opening sentence, viz, “where a case for eviction of tenant has been filed” would show that an exercise in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 16 of Ordinance, is to be made in every case of eviction filed by a landlord irrespective of grounds taken therefor. PLJ 1992 Karachi 133
S. 16 (2)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Struck off defence of appellant–Appellant has failed to deposit arrears of rent and also other dues payable by her in terms of order passed u/S. 16 (1), no exception can be taken to order impugned in appeal–Appeal is therefore dismissed in limine. PLJ 1996 Karachi 273
S. 16(1)– Tenant–Ejectment of –Defence–Striking off–Challenge to–There was ample material before Rent Controller to come to conclusion that receipts denied in totality by landlady could not ex facie be relied upon and order of tentative deposit with corresponding prohibition for landlady to affect withdrawals of disputed arrears, was a just, fair and lawful order — It ought to have been complied with — Appellant being a well-to-do man, period allowed for deposit of arrears was not short — Held: Order of tentative deposit being perfectly lawful consequential order striking off defence of appellant for non-compliance, calls for no interference — Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 279
S. 16(1)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default–Ground of–Relation of landlord and tenant–Question of–If there was a serious dispute about existence or non-existence of landlord and tenant relationship between parties Rent Controller should have afforded full opportunity to both parties and after recording: their-evidence he should have decided this issue, alongwith other issues at time of final disposal of case–It would have been much appropriate for Rent Controller to have decide application under Section 16(1) of Ordinance pending for disposal, alongwith main case–There is no legal and proper finding on the issue of relationship of land-lord and tenant between parties impugned orders are liable to be set aside–Rent appeals are allowed and orders of Rent Controller dated 21.5.1998 as well as order dated 25.2.1997 passed on applications under Section 16(1) of Ordinance are set aside–Rent Controller is directed to proceed with the cases in terms of directions contained in the short order dated 25.9.1998–It will be open for Rent Controller to pass a fresh order on application under Section 16(1) of Ordinance at time of final disposal of rent case–Appeal allowed PLJ 1999 Karachi 166
S. 16(2) read with Section 18–Tenant–Striking off defence of–Challenge to–Despite notice under Section 18, appellants did not recognize new owner to be their landlord–They insisted on Mst. Saeeda Akhtar to be their landlady–Deposit of rent in name of said lady, cannot be termed as technical default, rather it is contumacious and deliberate–There is no proper explanation for deposit of rent for January, 1991 on 7-2-1991–Held: Rent Controller was justified in striking off defence of appellant–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1994 Karachi 346
S. 16(2)–Jurisdiction for striking off defence–Held: Appellate Authority as well as High Court was competent to exercise powers conferred on Rent Controller under S. 16(2) to strike off defence for non-compliance of order. PLJ 1999 Karachi 95
S. 16(2)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Application for–Striking of defence of tenant–Challenge to–Rent Controller seems to have thought that because tenant had herself stated that she was making deposits in a Misc. Rent Case, she was bound by her statement–No estoppel arises upon such plea–Held: Impugned order striking off defence of appellant-tentant, was not in accordance with law and must be set aside–Appeal accepted and case remanded for proceeding on merits. PLJ 1991 Karachi 423
S. 16(2)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order striking off defence–Challenge to–In his objections to application under Section 16(2), appellant asserted that he had deposited entire rent but till April 1992, it was deposited in name of original landlord and after that in name of respondent–Question for decision is as to whether deposit of rent in wrong name would amount to non-compliance of rent deposit order passed under Section 16(1)–Preponderance of case law given by Supreme Court appears to be that in case of technical default, defence should not be struck off–It has not been established by respondent that deposit of rent in wrong name and in wrong case by appellant, was on account of his contumacious conduct or bad faith or was ill motivated–Held: Appellant cannot be held guilty of having intentionally violated rent deposit order–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1994 Karachi 262 1985 CLC 2862, NLR 1985 Civil 257, PLD 1980 SC 9, PLJ 1993 Karachi 40, 1993 CLC 1823, 1984 CLC 2620, 1992 CLC 366, 1992 CLC 2276, 1987 SCMR 1013 and PLD 1991 SC 711 discussed.
S. 16(2)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Struck off–Defence–Challenge to–Appellant was continuously depositing rent in Misc. Rent Case No. 720 of 1988 in the name of respondent prior to tentative rent order passed in Rent case No. 973 of 1993–Appellant instead of depositing rent as per tentative rent order passed in Rent case No. 973 of 1993 continued same in misc. rent case, otherwise there is no default in payment of rent–Held: appellant has committed only a technical default and not wilfull–Held further: Tentative rent order is also defective–Apps J allowed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 203g Present
S. 16(2)–Tenant–Striking off defence of–Challenge to–There is force in contention that while passing impugned orders under Section 16(1) & (2) of Ordinance, Rent Controller did not consider all payments made by appellant–He was supposed to consider all such claims about payments before ordering deposit of rent–Held: It is for Rent Controller to determine if amounts of Rs. 46000/-and 16500/- have been paid by appellant to respondent as security deposit and whether defence of appellant can be struck of in presence of security deposit—Appeal accepted and case remanded. PLJ 1994 Karachi 351
S. 16(2)–Tentative order of deposit of rent by Rent Controller–Order of tentative deposit showed that such deposit was “up to September, 1989”- Words “up to” carrying meaning “as far as”, a particular level, number, amount, point etc.–This, in turn, implies that when it is stated without anything more, that deposits would be “up to September, 1989” such may or may not include month of September itself though the months precedings September would definitely be included–If the intendment behind the phraseology was designed to definitively include month of eptember as well, a more accurate statement would be, “up to and inclusive of September, 1989”–To such extent, accordingly, order of deposit, which did not spell out number of months involved, was indefinite, ambiguous and uncertain–Since amount expected to be deposited, qua periodically, had thus become uncertain, accruing dues, in the circumstances for ensuing period also came to suffer with the same infirmity. PLJ 1999 SC 861
S. 16–Plan of building not duly approved by Authority–Effect–If construction was raised without any approved plan, same would not only create hurdles but would also increase menace of encroachment of lands and streets–Plan need not be approved. PLJ 1997 Karachi 951
S. 16–Tenant–Striking off defence of–Challenge to–Whether defence was rightly struck off–Question of–Since rent application was filed on 13.3.1993, rent due after 13.3.1990 was not time barred–In his written statement, appellant gave particulars of payments made by him, but he did not state if he had paid any amount on account of rent of premises in question–He mentioned in vague terms that he was regularly paying monthly rent–In his affidavit, he did not claim having deposited any amount in Court in terms of order dated 18.8.1992–Held: Rent Controller was justified in passing impugned order. PLJ 1994 Karachi 401
S. 16–Tentative rent deposit order–Essentials–Vague, uncertain and indefinite tentative rent orders, capable of more interpretations than one,unless an element of contumaciousness be patent on the record, should not, ordinarily, be made foundation for striking off defence of a tenant in terms of Section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, or of other provisions in pari materia–A tentative order of deposit of rent has to be certain, free of vagueness and must have an element of definitiveness–In tentative order of deposit of rent whether due to technical default, striking off tenants defence justified–Question of—If tenant continued to deposit rent even in other proceedings, rather than in accordance with tentative rent orders in main rent cases, without carrying any patent contumaciousness and resulting upon circumstances lacking any obvious wilfulness to disregard orders–Held: Tenant having been out of pocket to the extent of such erroneous, but bona fide, deposits could be purged of technical default, if he was otherwise found, in effect, in substance and ‘in content to have discharged his part of obligations- Such rule being sound, applied to a penal visitation in the way of striking off a tenant’s defence. PLJ 1999 SC 861
S. 17–Tenant–Ejectment of–Application for–Withdrawal of–Costs–Whether could be awarded–Question of–Section 17 provides that “where Controller is satisfied that any application made by landlord, for eviction of tenant, is frivolous or vaxatious, he may direct that compensation not exceeding 10 times the monthly rent, be paid by such landlord to tenant”–In this case, application moved by appellant for ejectment cannot be said to have been filed vaxatiously or was a frivolous one, simply on *round that she had entered into an agreement for sale with another party–Held: Rent Controller has no power to award cost to other party either by disposing off application on merits or dismissing same for non-prosecution or its restoration or on allowing withdrawal of ejectment application–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1990 Karachi 433
S. 18–Tenant–Ejectment of–Case of–Default in payment of rent–Ground of–Whether opponents have defaulted in payment rent intentionally–Question of–It is evident from applicants letter that they had insisted opponent to vacate premises within three months and even in clear terms informed latters that advance payment of un-expired period would be returned to them–When they made their intention clear to return advance rent it could not be expected from them that they would have accepted current and future rent–In these circumstances, Opponents were justified in depositing rent in court–Held : No default in payment of rent was committed PLJ 1996 Karachi 981
S. 18–Tenant–Ejectment of–Case of–Personal bonafide need–Ground of–Whether premises are required by applicants in goods faith–Question of–Applicants had purchased property with knowledge of legal rights vested in opponents by virtue of lease deed–Held : Eviction application against opponents on personal bonafide need was pre-mature. PLJ 1996 Karachi 981
S. 19(2)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Failure to submit written reply–Ex-parte proceedings against–Whether Rent Controller could recall ex-parte order–Question of–Ex-parte order passed by Rent Controller can he recalled if it is found that notice was not properly served on respondent or he could not file written statement because of some plausible ground–In this case there was unrebutted affidavit of Advocate that file of case was misplaced and as such written statement could not .he submitted within time–Held: On basis of unrchuttcd affidvit, Rent Controller ought to have allowed appellant to file his written. statement—Held Farther: ‘Even otherwise, equity and natural justice demand that no one should be condemned unheard–Appeal accepted and case remanded for proceeding on merits. PLJ 1994 Karachi 254
S. 19(4) read with Art. 134 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984–Production of documents in Court by departmental officials–Right of cross-examination refused by Rent Controller–Challenge to–Perusal of application of landlord would show that Deputy Controller of Building Town Planning was summoned through Controller to produce documents who in compliance of notice appeared before Controller and produced documents–Said officials could not be said to be witness of respondents/landlords as they were called to produce documents as same were issued by them and came from their custody being representative of competent authority under law–Both officials have not filed affidavits and right to cross examine witness has been given only when witness has filed affidavit, as affidavit is always to be on oath, whereas said officials have neither filed affidavit nor were administered oath but they only produced said documents–Held: Learned Rent Controller rightly disallowed cross-examination to learned counsel for appellant. PLJ 1996 Karachi 693
S. 2 (a) & (i) read with Section 16–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge to–Whether hiring charges for fixtures can be treated as rent for purposes of passing orders under Section 16–Question of–Word “building” has been explained in Section 2(a) to be any building or part thereof together with all fittings and fixures therein–In this way, fittings and fixtures go with building–Held: In view of statutory provisions, hiring charges for fixtures in a demised premises, are part of rent and are covered by definition of “rent” given in Section 2(i) of Ordinance. PLJ 1994 Karachi 351
S. 2 (g) Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal need–Ground of–Challenge to–Contention that requirement for landlord’s brother and sister would not come under “personal use” as defined in Section 2(g) of Rent Ordinance–It is true that brother and sister are not included in the category of family members as defined in Section 2(g) of Rent Ordinance but when brother and sister are joint owners of property for which ejectment is asked for, they would be asking for ejectment for personal requirement as owner therefore would be entitled to seek eviction of their property. PLJ 1997 Karachi 754
S. 2(f)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Relationship of landlord and tenant if not prove–Effect–Landlord sought eviction of appellant relying upon agreement of tenancy but to that agreement wherein respondent was not a party and executant was this father who was said to be his attorney while dealing with appellant–Said attorney signed agreement as owner of house and issued rent receipts under his signatures–Rent Controller found respondent to be owner and consequently passed order for ejectment of appellant–No evidence was available to the effect that respondent’s father was acting as his attorney while dealing with appellant, he neither let out premises to him nor did he ever act as landlord within the meaning of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979–Respondent proclaimed himself as landlord and his father as his attorney–Relationship of landlord and tenant being non-existent between parties, ejectment proceedings were not maintainable. PLJ 1998 Karachi 120
S. 21 read with O. 9 R. 13 of CPC–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge to–Landlady filed ejectment application against tenant on ground that she needed premises in good faith for bonafide personal use for herself and for her son–Summons was issued to appellant/tenant who appeared through counsel and case was adjourned for filing written statement–Non appeared for appellant/tenant and written statement was also not filed–Affidvit.-in-exparte proof was filed and ejectment application was allowed–Appellant/Tenant filed an application under order 8 rule 13 CPC which was dismissed–Contention raised by learned Council for appellant that notice before issuance of writ of possession was not given, therefore, his ejectment was illegal has no merit and substance–Appellant has got up from his sleep after expiry of seven months from date of passing order of ejectment–There is nothing on record to show as to what prevented him or his counsel from making any enquiry from office of Rent Controller to know progress and proceedings of case–Held: Appeal has no merit–Appeal dismissed PLJ 1996 Karachi 55
S. 21 read with S. 15(2) and 18–Ejectment application on ground of default–Dismissal of–Appeal to–Respondent’s predecessor-in-interest admitted appellant to be legal representative of original landlady–Appellants were brought on record in first rent case, therefore, respondents could not be permitted to say that appellants were not legal heirs of deceased landlady of demised shop premises–As soon as respondents’ predecessor-in-interest received intimation as per notice dated 31-1-1988 demanding rent from him, rent should have been tendered to appellants and in case of failure to accept rent, same could have been sent through money order and in case of its refusal, should have been deposited in office of Rent Controller—Held : Deposit of rent in name of deceased landlady in office of Rent Controller would not be due tender of rent–Finding of Rent Controller is not legal, hence. set aside and appeal allowed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 317
S. 21 read with S. 15(3) and S. 27(2)–Ejectment application on plea of reconstruction–Decreed to–No construction thereafter–Direction to deliver possession of portion which was in possession of respondent/tenant–Challenge to–There is no dispute on point that appellant has not started reconstruction of building within two years of taking over of possession of premises from respondent–Appellant’s attorney has admitted that he was running workshop in premises previously occupied by tenant–Respondent did not demolish existing building construction within prescribed period of six months–Held : No exception could be taken to finding of Rent Controller–Case filed by respondent/tenant was rightly decided under Rent Ordinance, 1979–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 738
S. 21 read with S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment on plea of personal bona fide need–Appeal against–There is nothing on record to show that need of respondent landlady is not based on good faith. Evidence adduced by her is not malafide or in bad faith–In spite of demand of payment of rent by respondent, appellants continued to deposit rent in office of Rent Controller in order to pass hardship and difficulties to landlady which in law could not be termed to be due tender, therefore appellants committed default in payment of rent from last notice dated 8-9-1987 till filing of ejectment application–Contention of appellants has no merit and substance–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1097 Karachi 303
S. 21 read with S. 16(2)–Default in payment of arrears of rent–Ejectment. application allowed and defence shuck off–Appeal against–Appellant has wilfully and deliberately defaulted in making payment of arrears as ordered by DB of High Court and Rent Controller and has also failed to deposit future monthly rent–Appeal dismissed and appellant directed to handover vacant possession to respondent. PLJ 1997 Karachi 614
S. 21 read with S. 16(2)–Ejectment application–Order for depositing rent and striking of defence–Challenge to–Rent Controller should have first decided relationship of landlord and tenant between parties–Order of deposit of rent could only follow thereafter–Appellant had filed his suit for specific performance of agreement of sale prior to filing of rent application by respondent–Main issue between parties is with regard to ownership of property–Case remanded back to Rent Controller with a direction to frame issue in respect of relationship of landlord and tenant and allow parties a chance to lead their evidence if any on this issue. PLJ 1997 Karachi 611
S. 21 read with S. 16-Application for ejectment–Tentative order for payment of rent–Non compliance of–Defence struck off–Appeal to–Appellants tenants were to deposit rent in the name of respondent/land lady, but they did not comply with said order–Reason stated by appellants that they could not contact their counsel is an after through as in objections no such ground was taken and further it could not be considered good cause for condoning non-compliance of order–Held It was duty of appellant to pursue the proceeding of case–There has been deliberate and wilful non compliance of order dated 20-5-1995–Further held : Rent for defaulted period could not he adjusted and applied from amount of rent deposited in MRC 260 of 1991–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 69
S. 21 read with S. 18–Land lord acquired right of ownership in property through sale deed–Notice of change in ownership–No reply–Eviclion application for default in payment of rent and bana fide personal requirement–Acceptance of–Appeal against–Relationship of landlord and tenant did not come to an end with the execution of sole of an agreement in favour of appellant as there is no such clause in said agreement–Right and interest, if any, in his favour is subject to the title of ownership acquired by respondent by virtue of registered sale deed in his favour–Relationship of landlord and tenant was established with the service of notice u/S. 18 of Ordinance, 1979–Only a period of 30 days is available to a tenant for payment of rent after service of notice–Respondent has reiterated his bonafide requirement of premises for his own use and occupation–This, statement of fact was not controverted during cross examination–Property owned by wife cannot be treated as property belonging to husband–There is evidence in rebuttal of assertion of respondent that he needs shop premises in dispute for his own use and occupation bonafide–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 505
S. 21 read with S. 8–Application for fixation of fair rent–Acceptance of–Challenge to–Case of respondent for fixation of fair rent was clearly known to appellants–They had cross-examined respondent on all facts–Application on any one factor given in S. 8 can be considered–Respondent on oath stated that rent of similar premises in similar/adjoining locality is about Rs. 5/- per sq Ft.–In cross examination, this assertion of respondent was not seriously challenged–Held: Rent fixed by Rent Controller is reasonable and just–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 205
S. 21 read with Section 12 (2) and Order 1 rule 10 CPC–Contention of appellant was that in ejectment proceedings he was not made party although he was co-tenant–Ejectment order was obtained by respondents by fraud and misrepresentative hence was liable to be set aside–Actual tenant respondent No. 3 made a petition for leave to appeal against order of dismissal of appeal, before Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed–Up till then, co-tenant was not on scene but appeared in execution proceedings after disposal of petition to leave to appeal by Supreme Court of Pakistan–This all would show that this appellant was set-up by Respondent No. 3 to obstruct and cause delay in execution of orders lawfully passed by competent courts–Held: Application was made with object of obstructing execution of lawful orders–Held further Appellant was not co-tenant at all–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 104
S. 21 read with Section 15(2)(vii)–Ejectment of Tenant–Appeal against–Bonafide requirement of landladies–Ground of–Once it was established that landlord required disputed premises in `good faith’, then Rent Controller was left with no other option but to order eviction of tenant–Demands for increase of rent were made in pursuance of tenancy agreements, even otherwise, demand of higher rent does not perse cast any doubt about personal bonafide requirement, if proved independently–Appeals dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 60
S. 21 read with Ss. 10 (3) and 18–Ejectment petition–Acceptance of–Appeal to–Appellant/tenant even after service of intimation notice ueposited rent in the name of deceased Mst. Halima Bai so also continued to deposit even after her death, therefore, said deposit of rent in the name of deceased knowingly, was not legal, hence he was defaulter in payment of rent–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 530
S. 21 read with Ss. 14 (2) and 15–Suit for ejectment for personal need–Decreed to–Appeal against–Respondent/Landlord being in occupation of portion of building using the same as residential would not be entitled to seek eviction for same purpose under provisions of section 14 against appellant–Rent Controller has allowed eviction under section 14 and has considered the evidence in the light of said provisions, whereas to entitle the respondent to evict appellant under section 15, personal requirements of respondent is to be adjudged keeping in view his good faith as well–Evidence adduced by respondent would not justify eviction of appellant Impugned order set aside and case remanded to Rent Controller to frame new issue whether applicant would be entitled to eviction under section 15 and also to decide case afresh. PLJ 1997 Karachi 746
S. 21(2) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.X:XXIX, Rr. 1 & 2- Powers of Appellate Court under S. 21(2), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and under O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C.–Comparison- Appellate Court under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 could exercise its power in accordance with S. 21(2) of Ordinance which empowered such Court to grant injunction staying further proceedings or action on the order of Rent Controller–Such power could not be equated with powers of Civil Court in terms of O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C.- Where parties were desirous in any other form of injunction that mentioned in S. 21(2) of Ordinance, they must approach Civil Court for their redress in that respect. PLJ 1998 Karachi 735
S. 21(3) read with Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (XII of 1979), S. 35–Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 4 and Hyderabad’ Development Authority Act–Whether Chief Minister has any authority to allot plots under H.D.A. Act–Question of–Argument that Chief Minister being Chief Executive of Province could allot plots was not warranted by law–Constitution has specified field of activity of executive and Government being run by laws and not by men, every action of executive must be backed by law and if any act of executive was not backed by law then guarantee given in Art. 4 of Constitution that to be dealt with in accordance with law is an inalienable right of every citizen,would become meaningless. PLJ 1997 Karachi 951
S. 21-Appeal under S. 21-Delayed appeal-Condonation of delay-Delay not condone-able under S. 5, Limitation Act (1908)-Appeal dismissed. P L J 1981 Karachi 148
S. 21–Ejectment application for personal need–Dismissal of–Appeal against–There are material contradictions in statements of respondent and her son–Appellant had expressly stated that shop which measured 7′ x 10′ did not satisfy his requirement and that shop in dispute was not suitable than small shop in which he could not open his clinic—The no evidence from respondent to show that this assertion of blank incorrect. Appellant had succeeded in proving his personal need tenant had failed in proving any bad faith on his part–Held It is open to Rent Controller to force landlord to use a particular premises his personal bonafide need when he prefers other premises in blank vicinity–Preference of landlord should prevail and not the choice, tenant or choice of Rent Controller–Appeal allowed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 720
S. 21—Ejectment application on ground of default–Ground of default admitted but application dismissed–Appeal against–Whether acceptance of defaulted payment of rent amounts to waiver on part of landlord–Question of–A landlords acceptance of rent paid to him at irregular intervals does not in any way, show that he does not accept it to be paid regularly every month, as the reason for receiving delayed payment might be his decency, his desire to accommodate his tenant, his pre-occupation with his work, hesitation to go to court of law or his reluctance to incur expenses and hazards of litigation–Tenant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own negligence–Premises is a commercial one and landlady is getting only Rs. 210/- in an area like Tariq Road Karachi, which would be more pittance—No discretion would be available to trial court once a finding has been arrived in terms of default–Impugned judgment set aside. PLJ 1998 Karachi 33
S. 21–Ejectment for personal requirement–Appeal against–Death of respondent during appeal–Effect of–Ejectment order has been passed during life time of original applicant/landlord and by virtue of said order, the said right became part of estate of deceased, therefore, said right passed on to his legal representatives who would be competent and entitled under law to execute and implement the same subject to decision in appeal. PLJ 1997 Karachi 326
S. 21–Ejectment of Tenant–Appeal against–Appellant did not appear before Controller for cross examination as such contents of his affidavitin-evidence could not be taken into consideration, whereas from cross examination of respondent and her son it was not established that they were in occupation of a portion of house–It is evident that appellant had knowledge about notices sent to him by respondent–Besides, no ground has been taken regarding notices–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 546
S. 21–Ejectment of tenant–Personal bona fide need–Ground of–Challenge to–A bonafide requirement cannot be turned down simply on assumption of tenant that proposed business could not be carried out profitably in premises in question. PLJ 1996 Karachi 792
S. 21–Ejectment petition–Acceptance of–Challenge to–Whether respondent required godown premises for personal need in good faith–Question of–In fact appellant/tenant has admitted in cross-examination that respondent/landlord needed godown premises for his own need–There is no dispute, that under the law, landlord if is able to prove his need in good faith, he would be entitled to possession of premises and further difficulties if any of tenant appellant would also not debar land lord from getting possession–Held : Existence of bonafide need would be sufficient to order eviction of a tenant, appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 526
S. 21–Ejectment petition–Ground of personal need–Rejection of–Appeal against–A landlord is given the privilege and prerogative to use his property for self occupation but such requirement must be manifested in good faith, reasonable, genuine and absolute requirement–Onus of proof of bonafide requirements is certainly and entirely on landlord–Lack of reasonableness and justness of case on the part of landlord may quite clearly suggest and prompt Controller to decline ejectment holding that such requirement was not bonafide–Mere wish or intention of landlord is not sufficient to give him a right to evict a tenant or to uproot and terminate tenancy without absolute necessity and justification for premises–Intention of landlord in any event must be genuine, honest and manifestly realistic–Mere desire, convenience whim or fancy of landlord would not at all be enough to show that premises are required in good faith–Appellant failed to make out a case of ejectment–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 523
S. 21–Eviction application on plea of default in payment and personal bonafide use–Acceptance of–Appeal against–Appellant had paid rent from 1980 on-ward at enhanced rate Rs. 100 p.m. as is evident from receipts issued by her—She offered rent at the rate of Rs. 70 pm, instead of Rs. 100 p.m. to predecessor-in-interest of respondents who were justified in not accepting it at said rate–Family of respondents/Land-lord consists of 6 major persons—Presently they are in occupation of only two rooms, which by any standard are insufficient for their requirements–Held : Default in payment of rent was wilful and requirement of land lord is bonafide hence, findings of Rent Controller are perfectly correct–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 1
S. 21–Interlocutory order–Constitutional petition against such order–Maintainability–No appeal having been provided against interim order under Section 21, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, High Court dismissed the petition assailing such order with observations that if Constitutional petition was to be entertained at such stage the very purpose of S. 21 of the Ordinance would be defeated–Tenant would have opportunity to file appeal if the final order went against him and then he could raise this ground too. PLJ 1999 Karachi 65
S. 21–Specific Relief Act, S. 42–Ejectment of tenants with observation of Supreme Court that they will be reinducted after reconstruction of flats–Fresh suit to declare respondents that they have lost right to reinduction due to non payment of outstanding electricity Bills–Whether second suit filed on fresh cause of action–Question of–In order to arrive at a conclusive finding it would be necessary that parties be permitted to lead evidence and to extract fact as to whether arrears of electricity were outstanding or not–Parties will have to be subjected to cross-examination as well–Held: Parties may be allowed an opportunity to lead evidence and bring on record, documents if any, case remanded to rent controller. PLJ 1996 Karachi 387
S. 21–Suit for ejectment–There was a clear default in deposit of rent for munths of August to October, 1977–In absence of any circumstances to show that appellant was prevented by superior force from depositing rent, it is difficult to accept contrary view–Appellant neither suggested to land lord nor his witness that he owned another house–Held : Choice as to in which house, landlord would like to live, is surely a matter within his prerogative and discretion–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 432
S. 21—-Tenant–Eject of–Personal bona fide. need–Ground of–Challenge to–Once bonafide requirement is established it is for landlord to decide if proposed business could be carried out in that particular premises or not–Neither court nor tenant can suggest to landlord otherwise. PLJ 1996 Karachi 792
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Contention that in a locality like Solider Bazar, respondents being ladies, could not run business of General Merchandise–Choice of doing a particular business depends on many factors such as nature of locality or nature of business being carried out in other shops in neighbourhood, therefore, if there is any change in circumstances the nature of business could also be changed–Main point is of bona fide requirement and if same is established nature of business could be changed at any time according to circumstances–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 1035
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Contention that landlord do not have resources to establish business–Lack of resources cannot be a valid ground to negate plea of personal requirement for bonafide use. PLJ 1996 Karachi 1035
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal bona fide need–Ground of–Admission by respondent that disputed premises are situated in Pugri fetching area, one cannot resist impression that prayer for ejectment of appellant was motivated by circumstance, that after getting same vacated, same may be let out on higher rent and on receipt of handsome amount by way of Pugri–Held: Impugned order cannot be sustained at law–Appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 215
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal bonafide need–Ground of–A landlord who desires bonafide to settle and lodge his married daughter alongwith her husband and children in his property, there is no logical reason to deny this privilege– PLJ 1996 Karachi 218
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal bonafide need–Ground of–High Court is not inclined to agree with proposition that where a married daughter is financially well-off-putting up with her husband and children in rented premises she would not be entitled to avail of property of her father. PLJ 1996 Karachi 218
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal bonafide need–Ground of–Apprehension of respondent/tenant that after eviction appellant wanted to make money or earn profit by way of letting out premises for commercial purposes by way of pugri is repelled–Provisions contained in section 15-A provide a remedy to tenant when premises got vacated are not used for purpose for which eviction was sought–Appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 218
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal bonafide need–Ground of–A landlord who desires bonafide to settle and lodge his married daughter alongwith her husband and children in his property, there is no logical reason to deny this privilege– PLJ 1996 Karachi 218
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal bonafide need–Ground of–High Court is not inclined to agree with proposition that where a married daughter is financially well-off-putting up with her husband and children in rented premises she would not be entitled to avail of property of her father. PLJ 1996 Karachi 218
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal bonafide need–Ground of–Apprehension of respondent/tenant that after eviction appellant wanted to make money or earn profit by way of letting out premises for commercial purposes by way of pugri is repelled–Provisions contained in section 15-A provide a remedy to tenant when premises got vacated are not used for purpose for which eviction was sought–Appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 218
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default in payment of rent, personal bona fide need and impairing utility of premises–Grounds of–Nuisance must be something which could occasion unpleasant or disagreeable situation–Where nuisance complained of related to small premises not exceeding 80 sq. yards; persons living in those premises having vehicle or two vehicles; same were bound to be parked outside premises in question–Congestion was bound to occur by parking vehicles outside such small houses, but at the same time magnitude of such nuisance and inconvenience could not be of such nature as to warrant eviction of tenant–Landlord had not mentioned even default in his evidence–No evidence was brought on record in support of plea that tenant had converted residential premises into commercial one–Landlord had failed to substantiate her claim for personal bona fide need–Judgment of Rent Controller refusing ejectment of tenant on basis of evidence on record being based on cogent reasons, would not warrant interference in appeal. PLJ 1999 Karachi 189
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge to–Personal use and default in payment of rent–Ground of–Evidence of Respondents/ landlords is consistent with pleadings and has been stated on oath that they needed premises in good faith, but tenant has failed to produce strong rebutting evidence to disprove evidence of landlord–Entire evidence produced has proved beyond any shadow of doubt that appellants/tenants did not pay rent for months of March and April and deposited rent of May, after due date therefore appellant/tenant became defaulter–Held: Appeal is dismissed being incompetent–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 95
S. 21–Trust Property Suit for ejectment on grounds of default/ unpayment and also caused additions and alterations in disputed premises without permission of trust and causing sufficient damage to properly diminishing its value–Order to vacate–Appeal against maintainability of eviction application–Whether attorney of trust properly was properly authorised to file eviction application–Question of–Eviction application was filed through duly constituted Attorney and power of Attorney was duly registered with sub register–Contention of appellants counsel that no case for ejectment can be filed when period of default falls beyond three years is misconceived–Once it is established that tenant has defaulted in payment of rent he losses his right to occupy premises–Appellant have failed to produce any proof or any coupon of money order by which they had sent rent for period of default–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 12 7
S. 21–Whether a person carrying business in a name other than his own name may file a suit in his own name–Question of–A person carrying business in a name or style other than his own some may be sued in such name, but he himself cannot sue as such and he has to sue in his personal name. PLJ 1997 Karachi 205
S. 4(2)–Rent Controller–Qualification of–Stage of raising objection–Tenant could raise such objection before Rent Controller at any stage during proceedings and not before appellate forum. PLJ 1999 Karachi 65
S. 5 (1)(2)–New agreement between parties–Non-registration–Effect–Contention that new agreement having neither been registered nor signed and attested by any Rent Controller, Civil Judge or Magistrate as provided under Section 5 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 had no evidentiary value and could not be relied upon for determining rent and other terms of tenancy–Held : Clause (ii) of sub-section (2) thereof clearly contemplates existence of tenancy and application of said Ordinance even in cases where no agreement in manner provided under section 5(1) has been executed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 760
S. 6(11–Notice to petitioner for demolishing shops and offices coming within cut-line portion–Challenge to–Whether plea of petitioner that there is no immediate prospect of road widening and thus they cannot be called upon to remove offending structure, is tenable especially when they failed to prove that constructed creature in front of their plot had been duly regularised and condition contained in letter of KMC fulfilled–Question of–It is not disputed that structure in question falls within cut-line portion–All that is urged is that necessary process for acquisition has not been taken in hand but that is not material–It is common knowledge that in various localities, multi-storeyed building are constructed leaving substantive frontage for cut-line purposes–Cut-line portions have never been acquired–If petitioner’s logic were to be accepted then owners of such cut-line portion could raise make shift constructions thereon on simplest of pleas that awaiting acquisition they could use their property in manner suited to themselves–In expanding modern city such as Karachi, cut-line provisions are of vital importance–Such have to be given effect to in all individual cases and one individual cannot steal march over another by simply saying that scheme is itself in state of fruition and that be would only act when others do likewise or that till such time as land is his, he is free to do with it what he pleases–Held: Land can remain with owner petitioners to be used as open ground or for any other purpose except use as building constructed thereupon–Held further Constitutional jurisdiction is essentially equitable in nature, but no equities call to be protected in this case–Petitions dismissed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 171
S. 8, 9 & 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Whether appellant/tenant was defaulter in payment of rent for months of July and August–Question of–Testimony of respondents attorney could not be shaken and same was consistent with pleadings on default in payment of rent for month of July and August which stood proved as rent was neither paid nor tendered in terms of expired tenancy agreement between parties–Held, Tenant is defaulter–Appeal dismissed– PLJ 1996 Karachi 130
S. 8, 9 & 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Whether appellant/tenant was defaulter in payment of rent for months of July and August–Question of–Testimony of respondents attorney could not be shaken and same was consistent with pleadings on default in payment of rent for month of July and August which stood proved as rent was neither paid nor tendered in terms of expired tenancy agreement between parties–Held, Tenant is defaulter–Appeal dismissed– PLJ 1996 Karachi 130
S.10 (4) — Ejectment of tenant — Order of — Challenge to — Default Ground of — Whether appellant had actually tendered rent through two money orders — Question of — Under Section 10(4) of Ordinance receipt of postal money order amongst others, can he accepted as proof of payment of rent — Held: Money order receipts stood proved and same were taken to he proof of payment of rent under Section 10(4) of Ordinance — Held further: Appellant cannot be said to have committed default in payment of rent — Appeal allowed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 275
S.10–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge to–Default in payment of rent–Ground of–Under Section 10 of Ordinance, tenant has to tender rent directly to landlord in first instance, and in case landlord refuses or avoids to accept rent, same is to be sent to him through postal money order or to be deposited with Rent Controller–Appellant has not placed any corroborative evidence on record, to show that he had ever tendered rent to respondent–Held: Appellant miserably failed to show that he had tendered rent to respondent and is liable to be ejected on account of default in payment of rent–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1994 Karachi 164
S.12–Property under tenancy–Repairs of–Prayer for–Rejection of–Challenge to–Admittedly, there is no written agreement of tenancy–Rent Controller was in error in holding that because there was no written tenancy, repairs could not be sought by tenant–No objection having been raised on local Commissioner’s report, it stands accepted, and according to his report,property requires repairs–Held: Rent Controller, in not accepting this report, has again acted irregularly and improperly in exercise of powers conferred upon him and his order is bad–Appeal accepted and case remanded. PLJ 1991 Karachi 345
S.12–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Whether amount spent by tenant on repairs is adjustable towards arrears of rent–Question of–A landlord can be directed to carry out repairs to keep premises in proper shape and if he fails to do so, Rent Controller may, on application made to him by tenant, direct that such repairs may be carried out by him and cost thereof be deducted from rent payable to landlord–In this case, respondent had permitted appellant to carry out necessary repairs but only to extent of Rs.2000/- –Field: Appellant could at best adjust an amount of Rs.2,000/-towards cost incurred by him over repairs of premises. PLJ 1991 Karachi 241
S.14 (1) — Tenant — Ejectment of — Order of — Challenge to — Contention that it was a case of fresh tenancy due to compromise in F.R.A. No.182 of 1985, whereby respondent had agreed to accept enhanced rent, disentitling her to seek summary ejectment of appellant — Held: An increase of rent by mutual agreement during operation of tenancy would not constitute renting out premises within meaning of proviso to Section 14(1) of Ordinance — Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 172 1988 MLD 2541 rel.
S.14 read with National Registration Act, 1973 (LVI of 1973), Sections 9 & 11–Tenant–Ejectment of–Landlady attaining age of 60 years -Ground of–Finding of Rent Controller is positive and in affirmative–It is based on entries in National Identity Card and other material brought on record–Entries in National Identity Card were made at time when law granting any such benefits was not in existence and when there was no such controversy which could have prompted landlady to give an incorrect age–Held: Entries of National Identity Card shall hold field unless they are rebutted by an equally good or better evidence which is altogether lacking in this case. PLJ 1991 SC 416
S.14(1) — Tenant — Ejectment of — Order of — Challenge to — Whether plea of want of bonafides is relevant — Question of — Held: Question whether plea of want of bonafides is relevant in case of ejectment under Section 14(1) of Ordinance, has been set at rest by a Division Bench of Sindh High Court. PLJ 1993 Karachi 172 PU 1986 Karachi 369 rel.
S.14(2) — Tenant — Ejectment of — Order of — Challenge to — Subsection(2) of Section 14 of Ordinance provides an exception that landlord shall not be entitled to benefit of Section 14(1) if he is in occupation of a building owned by him in any locality — Respondent in this case, wants disputed premises mainly for commercial purpose — Held: Contention that landlady being admittedly in occupation of a residential premises in same building, cannot seek ejectment of her tenant on ground that same is more suitable to her needs, is devoid of force. PLJ 1993 Karachi 172
S.14(l) & (3) — Tenant — Ejectment application by widow under summary procedure for personal requirement — Eviction from flat ordered but that from shop refused — Challenge to — Appellant stated in cross-examination that she was prepared to give ground portion of demised premises on enhanced rent if first floor of premises was vacated — Held: Landlady had tailed to bring her case within scope of Section 14(1) of Ordinance, 1979, because such admission by her clearly indicates that premises on ground floor was not actually needed by her — Held further: Delayed action by landlady casts doubts on factum for her “personal requirement” of rented premises — Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 285
S.14–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge to–Objection that respondent was not owner of premises in dispute–A person can own a premises without having a legal title over plot over which premises are constructed–Ownership of respondent was not disputed by appellant at any stage of case–Held: Appellant will be debarred from raising such plea at appellate stage–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1992 Karachi 52 1983 CLC 317 rel.
S.14–Tenant–Ejectment of–Prayer for–Dismissal of ejectment petition–Challenge to–Section 14 enables a landlord to seek eviction of his tenant on ground that he was salaried employee and he had retired from service–However, he has to establish his prima facie need–In this case, appellant retired from service with effect from 17.8.1975, and had he required shop for his own use, he would not have rented out same to respondent on 20.8.1975–Ordinance was promulgated on 21.11.1979, while rent case was filed by appellant on 23.4.1986–Although no limitation is prescribed but delay militates against appellant’s genuine need–Held: Appellant has not been able to establish his genuine need for disputed shop–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1991 Karachi 273 PLJ 1983 Karachi 15 and 1986 CLC 681 rel.
S.14-Tenant–Ejectment of–Rejection of application–Challenge to–It was stated by respondent in written statement that appellant was in occupation of similar shop/premises in same building and that object of filing application for ejectment was to obtain huge amount of pugree–Application was dismissed by Rent Controller for non-compliance of provisions of Section 14 in asmuch as notice was sent one month earlier than stipulated time–It is bounden duty of Rent Controller to see if statutory requirements of Section 14 of Ordinance have been fully complied with–Held: Appellant’s application under Section 14 of Ordinance, was premature–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 5 PLJ 1989 SC 62 rel.
S.15 — Ejectment — Refusal of — Challenge to — Default — Ground of –Landlady adopted practice of collecting accumulated rent from tenants including respondent — Documentary evidence establishes that appellant had been receiving lump sum rent of two to fifteen months from tenants from January, 1981 — Held: Rent Controller had exercised discretion in accordance with recognised principles in condoning delay in payment of rent by respondent — Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 223
S.15 — Ejectment of tenant — Challenge to — Personal bonafide requirement –Ground of — Respondent’s husband and attorney admitted that she had in het possession two shops on ground floor at time of purchase of property in question, which were still in her possession – He also admitted that he was carrying on another business under name of ‘Faiz Motors and Workshop’ where he was admittedly dealing with sale and purchase of cars and their repairs — Moreover, landlady has failed to place any material regarding requirement for her children – iesHeld: Respondent has failed to establish her personal requirement in good faith for onherself and for her husband and children — Appeal allowed. Ne PLJ 1993 Karachi 214
S.15 – Ejectment of tenant — Challenge to — Whether demand of higher rent was an act of malafide — Question of — Held: Demand of higher rent by itself cannot be regarded as an act of malafide — Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 218
S.15 — Tenant — Ejectment of — Refusal of — Challenge to — Conversion of residential premises into godown — Ground of — There is evidently an error on face of record and misreading of evidence on record — Respondents’ own documents disclose that respondents have been using premises as a godown –Deposition of appellant in this regard, has also gone unrebutted — Held: Respondents by converting premises into a godown, have impaired value and utility of house — Appeal accepted. PLJ 1993 Karachi 287
S.15 (2) (ii) read with Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Article, 84–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Default–Ground of–Contention that comparison of signatures made by Rent Controller, is dangerous to be relied upon without aid of an expert–Article 84 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 lays down an additional mode of proving signature and court can compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures–Held: Rent Controller who had compared signature of respondent on disputed receipt, having given cogent reasons in support of conclusion drawn by him, there is no ground to differ with assessment made by him–Held further: Even if disputed receipt is accepted as genuine, still appellant was defauterPLJ 1991 Karachi 226 PLD 1960 Dacca 835, 1985 SCMR 214 and 1981 SCMR 93 rel.
S.15 (2) (ii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Default–Ground of–Contention that appellant had spent a sum of Rs. 75000/- over construction of disputed premises and he was entitled to adjustment of this amount–This plea was not raised by appellant in written statement–Held: When a plea is not taken in pleadings, no evidence can be led or looked into in support of such a plea. PLJ 1991 Karachi 226 1987 CLC 157 rel.
S.15(2)(ii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Default–Ground of–Demand of enhanced rent did not absolve appellant to pay or tender agreed rent–He was bound to make payment to landlord within time at same rate, which quite admittedly he failed to do so–Held: Finding of Rent Controller about default is not open to any exception and is confirmed. PLJ 1991 Karachi 241
S.15(2)(ii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to—Default–Ground of–Respondent had not been able to discharge initial onus of proving that appellant had defaulted in payment of rent as she never issued any rent receipt and did not produce any hook of account to show that rent for a particular month was not paid to her–Moreover, advance of 2500/- could be adjusted towards monthly rent if there was any default–Respondent did not come to court with clean hands as she suppressed fact that previously she had filed rent case for eviction of appellant–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1991 Karachi 276
S.15(2)(vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal need–Ground of–Respondent has simply stated that disputed premises is required by him for business of his son–His son has, however, admitted in cross-examination that he has got an agency of Michels Fruit Products and is running a shop near Palace Hotel, Jacobabad–Held: A simple desire to get premises vacated, is not sufficient–Finding on issue of personal need reversed. PLJ 1991 Karachi 241
S.15(2)(vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal requirement–Ground of–In seeking ejectment of a tenant for personal requirement, landlord has only to satisfy Rent Controller that his needs are genuine and he requires premises honestly–Held: No exception can be taken to findings of Rent Controller on this issue. PLJ 1991 Karachi 226
S.15(2)(vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Dismissal of ejectment application–Challenge to–Personal use of landlord would include use of premises by all such persons who are dependent on or residing with landlord–Although Mst. Shamima Sattar being a co-owner of premises, was also entitled to use of same, but even if highly technical objection raised by respondents is accepted, use of appellant would include use of premises by Mst. Shamima Sattar as well because she is residing with appellant–Held: Contention that ejectment application was filed by appellant without making Mst. Shamima Sattar a party, has no force. PLJ 1993 Karachi 448
S.15-A read with Sections 14 and 15(2)(vii)–Tenant=-Handing over possession on landlord’s request for his personal use–Subsequently landlord relating same–Whether tenant can invoke provision of Section 15-A–Question of–Proceedings under Section 15-A can be initiated against landlord when he gets possession under Section 14 or 15(2)(vii) through Rent Controller and then instead of personal use, relets same–ln this case, admittedly tenant had on his own and on demand of landlord, handed over vacant possession–Held: Action under Section 15-A of Ordinance could not have been taken against appellant–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1991 Karachi 153
S.15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Whether ejectment of tenant can be ordered on ground that tenant had defaulted in payment of rent in respect of a period, rent whereof had become time-barred–Question of–There is no finding that there was any default in payment of rent after August, 1983–Ejectment has been ordered as rent from October, 1982 till July 1983, had been tendered through money order on 6.8.1983–Ejectment application was filed on 21.4.1988–Landlord could not have filed a suit for recovery of the amount in April, 1988 as rent for said period had become time-barred–Held: Rent for defaulted period was not lawfully due and it could not be recoverd through legal proceedings, therefore, ejectment of, appellant could not be ordered on ground of default in payment of rent–Appeal accepted and ejectment order set aside. PLJ 1991 Karachi 145
S.15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Application for–Dismissal of–Challenge to–Appellant dropped respondent No.1 as according to him no person by name of respondent No.1 existed–In ejectment case, ground was that respondent No.1 was tenant and he had sublet premises to respondent No.2–Respondent No.2 did not admit him as landlord–Held: There being no relationship’ of landlord and tenant between appellant and respondent No.2, rent case cannot be maintained against him, and Controller had rightly dismissed eviction application after withdrawal of case against respondent No.1. PL. 1991 Karachi 324
S.15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Application for–Dismissal of–Challenge to–Subletting and impairing of value or utility of premises–Grounds of–Respondent and his son’s statements to effect that respondent No.2 has been paying rent of Rs.300/- P.M. to appellant for both shops at rate of Rs.150/-per shop, are being supported by rent receipts and money order receipt–Evidence of respondents about creation of independent tenancy between appellant and respondent No. 2 has remained unshaken and established–Held: Mere fact that respondents have carried out certain additions and alterations will not entitle appellant to an order for eviction–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1991 Karachi 160
S.15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Application of–Dismissal of–Challenge to–Impairing value or utility of premises and nuisance–Grounds of–Held: A perusal of evidence produced by appellant will reveal that appellant has neither produced any evidence as to how value or utility of premises has been impaired nor their is any evidence that respondent was creating nuisance in neighbourhood–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1991 Karachi 159
S.15–Tenant–ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal need–Ground of–It was stated by respondent that he required shop in dispute to establish his business at Karachi– Appellant specifically denied aforesaid requirement and pleaded that respondent had been running a shop adjacent to his shop and had sufficient accommodation at his disposal–This contention of appellant was not rebutted by respondent–Respondent’s son deposed that business in name of Saleem & Brothers Medical Store was owned by him and his father wanted to run his own business in shop in dispute–Such evidence is of no consequence as respondent himself did not disown said business–Held: It is not possible to reach conclusion that respondent requires premises in question in good faith for his bonafide use–Appeal accepted and eviction order set aside. PLJ 1992 Karachi 156
S.15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Orders of–Challenge to–Additions and alterations in rented premises–Ground of–It is admitted position that appellant did make certain additions and alterations in shop–It is also an admitted position that this was done without permission and consent of landlady–Held: Although it may be a disputable fact whether this act has impaired value or utility of shop, but there can be no denying fact that it is likely to impair look of shop. P1J 1992 Karachi 1,48
S.15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Prayer for–Landlord and tenant–Relationship of–Denial of–Challenge to–Respondent, by his conduct, has admitted that he was tenant of premises in dispute–There should be some overtact done by tenant to create an interest in immovable property, a right in all partners of firm so as to create in them unity of title, unity of interest, unity of possession as well as every part of deal, so that all partness become co-tenants–In this case, disputed premises were not brought into as a part of partnership property and no interest in premises passed over to partners so as to make them co-tenants–Held: Relationship of landlord and tenant does exist between parties–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1991 Karachi 281
S.16 — Ejectment — Challenge to — Whether tentative rent order is open to examination in appeal — Question of — Patent illegalities and manifest injustice in tentative rent order are open to examination in appeal against eviction following striking off defence — Held: Court sitting in appeal can examine initial as well final order of Rent Controller, however scope of such exercise is confined to injustices, illegalities and jurisdictional errors, none of which exist in this case. PLJ 1993 Karachi 245
S.16(1) — Ejectment — Defence — Striking off — Whether fixed deposit was adjustable towards rental dues — Question of — Fixed deposit was refundable only on expiry of tenancy according to agreement — Held: Security deposit is to be applied as stipulated and not otherwise e.g. not to cure a general default, unless agreed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 245
S.16(1) — Ejectment of tenant — Defence — Striking off — Challenge to –Rent Controller had struck off defence of appellant/tenant on ground that he had failed to comply with the interim order to deposit arrears of rent — Controller was required to determine exact amount of arrears regarding electricity bills, water and conservancy charges — Moreover Sui Gas Charges were not included according to rent agreement — Held: Interim order under Section 16(1) being defective and vague, was untenable and final order being based on it, is also rendered ineffective — Appeal accepted and case remanded to Controller for passing fro’h order under Section 16(1) of the Ordinance. PLJ 1993 Karachi 166
S.16(1) & (2) — Tenant — Ejectment of — Striking off defence of tenant –Challenge to — Whether appellant was not properly advised while giving his consent for deposit of arrears — Question of — Order of Rent Controller for depsoit of arrears of rent was admittedly passed by consent of parties — Before such order, appellant himself had filed on application seeking permission to deposit such arrears — Held: It cannot be said that appellant was not properly advised. PLJ 1993 Karachi 302
S.16(1)&(2)–Tenant–Striking off defence of–Challenge to–Appellant had not produced with his objections, counterfoils of money order coupens, therefore, Rent Controller could not take same into consideration while passing order under Section 16(1) of Ordinance–There is no defect in order of Rent Controller passed on 18.4.1993 (for deposit of arrears of rent)–Held: Non-compliance of said order, calls for invoking of penal clause as provided in Section 16(2) of Ordinance which has rightly been resorted to by Rent Controller—Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1994 Karachi 388
S.16(1)–Tenant–Defence of–Striking off–Challenge to–Held: It is by now a settled law that Rent Controller has no power at all to extend time for deposit of rent fixed by him under Section 16(1) of Ordinance–Held further: Reasons given by Rent Controller for refusing to extend time, are un-exceptional–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1991 Karachi 321
S.16(1)–Tenant–Defence of–Striking off–Challenge to–Unquestionably, an issue going to root of controversy and involving jurisdiction, is more an issue between court and parties than between parties inter-se and has to be decided before any basic order in proceedings is passed–However, question of maintainability stood given up in this case at all material times–About contention that no rent being due at time of filing of rent case, no order of . deposit in terms of Section 16(1) could be passed, all that need be said is that a case cannot be thrown out by a judicial forum if ex facie it attracts jurisdiction of forum–In ejectment cases, order of deposit has to be passed if a landlord makes an application under Section ’16(1) of Ordinance and subsistence of arrears of rent is not relevant–Held: None of objections to tentative order of deposit of rent, is valid and there is no justification to interfere with impugned order–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 382
S.16(1)–Tentative arrears of rent–Deposit of–Order of–Striking off defence–Challenge to–Application under Section 16(1) of Ordinance, was taken up on a date on which it was not fixed and order was passed thereon in absence of appellant or his counsel–Principle of audi alteram partem has been transgressed by Rent Controller without any justification–Held: Order under Section 16(1) of Ordinance was bad and subsequent order of striking off defence, founded thereupon, is equally bad–Appeal accepted and case remanded for fresh decision on application under Section 16(1) of Ordinance PLJ 1991 Karachi 365
S.16(1)–Tentative arrears of rent–Deposit of–Order of–Striking off defence–Challenge to–Arrears pertained to a period prior to institution of rent case and covered a little more than 43 months–Substantial part of amount was beyond period of 3 years prior to filing of eviction matter–Held: Tentative order Contravened rule laid down by Supreme Court. PLJ 1991 Karachi 365
S.16(2)–Tenant–Defence of–Striking off–Default admitted but delay in deposit of arrears condoned by Rent Controller–Challenge to–It is well settled that Controller is left with no other option but to strike off defence of tenant if default in deposit of arrears is admitted or proved–Held: Rent Controller while condoning delay, has failed to appeciate obvious negligence of respondents and his order is bad in law–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1991 Karachi 302
S.16(2)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Prayer for–Defence of tenant–Striking off–Challenge to–Direction about deposit of arrears of rent is illegal inasmuch as instead of determining exact amount to be deposited as arrears, Rent Controller ordered deposit of arrears of 24 months tentatively–Other part of rent order about deposit of future rent was valid–Defence of appellant could be struck off for non-compliance of rent order only on ground that direction for deposit of further rent was not complied–Held: It could not be held that there was a default in deposit of rent for October, 1987 (not covered by direction about future rent) by appellant. PLJ 1991 Karachi 266
S.18 — Death of landlord — Notice intimating death — Service of — Whether notice was served on appellant — Question of — It is stated by respondent in ejectment application that on death of her husband, she had sent intimation to appellant on three dates through registered A.D. post but all envelopes were returned with evasive remarks — Held: Presumption of appellant having been served with three notices could have arisen if same had not come back to respondent after they were sent on correct address of appellant — Held further : However, filing of rent application by respondent can be treated notice under Section 18 of Ordinance. PLJ 1993 Karachi 205
S.18 — Ejectment of tenant — Challenge to — Whether notice about new ownership was necessary — Question of — Purpose of notice under Section 18 of Ordinance is only to inform tenant about new ownership, which appellants knew much earlier when previous application was filed by respondents — eviction was not sought on ground of default — Held: Service of notice was immaterial. PLJ 1993 Karachi 218
S.2(h) read with Section 15(2)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Prayer for–Dismissal of ejectment petition–Challenge to–Whether in view of use of premises for running a factory, it ceases to be premises defined in Section 2(h) of Ordinance–Question of–Contention that a factory does not come within ambit of Ordinance–Under Section 15(2), landlord can invoke provisions in respect of “premises” which means a building or land, let out on rent, but does not include a hotel–Held: A building or land does not cease to be premises defined by Section 2(h) if it is used for running a factory–Held further: Had it been so, such provision would have been made in Section 2(h) or Section 15 of Ordinance. PLJ 1994 Karachi 167
S.2(i)–Rent–Definition of–Water conservancy and betterment taxes–Whether included in rent–Question of–Agreement deed produced by landlord was not proved as signatures on document did not tally with admitted signatures of tenant, and said agreement was not signed by any attestation witness–Contention that rent includes water charges, electricity charges and such other charges which are payable by tenant, cannot be accepted–Held: Plain language of definition of rent in Section 2(i) of Ordinance, does not in any manner cast any statutory liability on tenant for payment of said charges in absence of any agreement to said effect–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 68
S.21–Suit for ejectment on grounds of default in payment, sub-letting of subject premises and conversion of premises from residential to commercial–Decreed to–Appeal against–Anwar Ahmed, Advocate was engaged by appellant and his co-opponent Muhammad Aslam to represent them–Their signatures on vakalatnama and various other affidavits, have been compared with admitted signatures and some appear to resemble with each other–He made a statement that be was duly engaged by appellant and co-opponent which remained unchallenged–No notice is required to be issued if opponent appears through a pleader duly instructed and able to answer all material questions relating to proceedings–Besides, Rent Cantroller held service of notice upon appellant and co-opponent good in order dated 19.9.1993–Held : Allegation against Anwar Ahmed, Advocate regarding his appearance unauthorisedly does not inspite confidence and is belied by circumstances and record–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 687
S.22–Tenant–Ejectment of–Application for permission to pay rent to respondent–Rejection of–Challenge to–Appellant having admitted relationship of landlord and tenant between him and respondent, and having lost ejectment case before Controller as well as in F.R.A., has now no legs to stand–Held: Possibility of agreement and notice being concoted and forged, cannot be ruled out–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1991 Karachi 323
S.2–Tenant–Ejectment of–Dismissal of ejectment application–Challenge to–Whether Rent Controller had jurisdiction under Ordinance in respect of a saw mill–Question of–As is clearly evident from definitions, a saw mill does not fall either within purview of expression “building” or “land” as defined in Section 2 of Ordinance—It is admitted position that when premises were let out to respondent, a saw mill had already been installed therein–Held: No useful purpose would be served by remand of case for recording evidence to determine whether premises consisted of only a saw mill or a shop, because evidence on point already appears to be sufficient upon which a clear finding could be given by Controller–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1994 Karachi 56
S.8.–Fair rent–Determination of–Challenge to–Contention that orders of Rent Controller fixing fair rent, are arbitrary and all factors required to be considered under Section 8 of Ordinance have not been dilated upon–Form P.T.I. showing increase of gross rental value has not been considered by Rent Controller–He has taken into consideration only enhancement in water charges and other factors have not been taken into consideration–Held: Fair rent Fixed by Rent Controller is based on arbitrary discretion and no cogent reasons have been assigned for same–Appeal accepted and case remanded. PLJ 1991 Karachi 221
S.8–Fair rent–Fixation of–Challenge to–Whether appellants being tenant since 1958, had acquired a vested right and therefore, application for increase of rent was not maintainable–Question of–On repeal of Sindh urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 by Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, said vested right could not continue as a different intention is shown by not fixing any period of limitation for filing application for fair rent–Held: No vested right was created in favour of appellant. PLJ 1991 Karachi 163
S-16 — Ejectment — Challenge to — Striking off defence — Tenant has to make scrupulous compliance of tentative order of deposit leaving basic controversies to be decided in ultimate analysis — Admittedly, there was continuous default for the period of four months – Held: Little exception could be taken to order of Controller striking off tenant’s defence. PLJ 1993 Karachi 245
Se. 16(2) & 21–In February, 1995, rent was deposited on 12th February, Friday & Saturday being public holidays–Appellant depositing rent regularly otherwise–Admittedly, appellant has made no default except as mentioned hereinabove–Admittedly, there is no other delay in depositing arrears or future rent which could import element of negligence or wilful disobedience on the part of appellant–In view of principle laid down in above case law and facts of the cases–Held: There seems to be no default committed by tenant. PLJ 1997 Karachi 528
Section 15 (2) (vii)–Ejectment of tenant–Personal need of landlord–Contention that there are existence of inconsistencies between pleadings and evidence of Respondent/Landlord regarding personal bonafide need–Admission of Respondent that her husband had opened a tution centre and she is running a boutique business in application, whereas in cross-examination Respondent stated that she is working in a school as teacher–Held: With regard to denial that applicant is not working as school teacher does not seem to be inconsistency- PLJ 1996( Karachi) 156
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (XVII of 1979)- —-S. 16(2)–Failure to deposit rent determined by Rent Controller–Plea of tenant that order was vague and, thus, had no force–Held : It tenant chose to deposit rent on the last few days then he must suffer for his own negligence. PLJ 1999 Karachi 95
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (XVII of 1979)- —-S.8–Fair rent–Fixation of–Challenge to–A perusal of Section 8 will show that four factors required to be considered are, (1) rent of similar premises situated in similar circumstances in same and adjoining locality, (2) rise in cost of construction and repair charges, (3) imposition of new taxes, and (4) annual valuation of premises if any on which property tax is levied–Respondent has been able to establish three factors but no evidence has been produced about fourth factor, i.e., annual rental valuation of property– Respondent has established rent from Rs.3/- to Rs.6/- per square foot–Held: Controller has judiciously taken into consideration provisions of law and fact and has reduced rent to Rs.2/- per square foot instead of Rs.3/- which is paid for similar premises–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1991 Karachi 163
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (XVII of 1979)0 —-S. 21(b)–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R. 27—Additional evidence–Nature of documents sought to be produced on record by way of additional evidence was such that those documents were relevant for making further enquiry in order to come to a just and proper conclusion and pertained to same subject-matter between same parties–Court in the interest of justice allowed application. PLJ 1998 Karachi 658
Ss- 21 & 15–Tenant–Ejectment of—Default of payment of rent Ground of—Appeal against–Deposit of rent i office of Rent Controller by appellant who is not tenant of respondent No. 1 would not be due tender of rent by tenant–Respondent Nu. 2 being tenant of respondent No. I Ceded to fonder rent for stated period therefore, he was defaulter–Respondent No. 1 has proved by documentary as well as mid evidence that respondent No. 2 had entered into agreement with her–Execution of said agreement has not been denied by respondent No. 2 and appellant-Held : There has been default in payment of rent by respondent No. 2 who was tenant of respondent No. 1–Findings of Rent Controller reversed– Appeal dismissed and respondent No. 2 directed to vacate premises. PLJ 1997 Karachi 297
Ss. 10 & 15(2)–Tenancy under agreement–Mode of payment–Payment of rent after expiry of period fixed by mutual agreement as used in Sec. 15(2) would mean period fixed by that agreement, which is executed U/S 15 of Ordinance–This period may be weekly, monthly or yearly–Default in such cases would be counted after expiry of that period–In absence of any date fixed in this behalf by mutual agreement then, under section 10 of Ordinance, rent has to be paid not later than 10th of month next following month for which it is due–In such cases default has to be computed according to spirit of section–Held: Both those modes of payment of rent would be applicable in cases when tenancy between parties started after promulgation of Ordinance, 1979. PLJ 1996 Karachi 612
Ss. 14 & 19-Rent Controller seized of an application under S. 14-Not to ignore procedure laid down in S. 19 (4)-Words. Summary manner” in S. 14 (3)-Do not deprive from right to show cause or give evidence and to crossexamine. P L J 1981 Karachi 697
Ss. 15 & 18 read with Qanun-a-Shahadat (10 of 1984) Art. 114–Ejectment application–Maintainability–Waiver–Question of–Ejectment petition filed by one of the legal heirs of deceased landlord on the ground of default and personal bona•fide need, was resisted by tenants on ground that same was not maintainable as apart from legal heir who had filed ejectment application there were other legal heirs of deceased who had not chosen to file ejectment proceedings–No provision existed in Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to the effect that if some of the legal heirs had not chosen to file ejectment application against tenant or were not interested in collecting rent, other co-sharers could not enforce their right of receiving rent–Ownership right devolved on all legal heirs of deceased landlord and all had legal right to initiate ejectment proceedings–Tenants could have deposited rent in Court to safeguard interest of those legal heirs who were not party to ejectment proceedings and could not take benefit by not paying rent–Even, legal heirs of deceased who had not enforced their right of collecting rent., had not waived their right and mere inaction of those legal heirs could not be termed as waiver for waiver should either be expressed or implied–To prove waiver there should be some clear and justified act or conduct beyond mere silence. PLJ 1997 Karachi 986
Ss. 15 & 19–Tenant–Ex prate ejectment of–Challenge to–Date fixed for hearing of ejectment application having been declared as holiday, Rent Controller passed ex park, ejectment order on very next date which date was not fixed for hearing and that too without notice to opponent–Ex prate proceedings and ex prate ejectment order passed by Rent Controller, thus, were void ab initio, illegal, inoperative and would not create any right in favour of applicant. PLJ 1997 Karachi 1009
Ss. 15 & 21–Advance payment of rent–Whether considered default in payment of rent–Amount of advance rent was deposited by tenant and same could be treated as a rent for period of default–No exception, thus, could be taken to finding of Rent Controller that there was no default in payment of rent. PLJ 1999 Karachi 765
Ss. 15 & 21–Personal need of landlord who is practising Advocate and intends to set up business in demised premises–Petition accepted by Rent Controller–Challenge to–Enrollment of respondent as Advocate cannot prevent him from embarking of his future course of action–He had attained age of 60 years and he has also served upon appellant notice under Section 14 which was replied–Attempt was further made to deny claim of landlord by showing that he owned two buildings behind building in question–However, that flats and shops in those buildings were already let out to tenants–Respondent/landlord has succeeded in proving his need being retired from service on attaining age of superannuation–Even otherwise such pleas had not been taken in written statement and therefore, cannot be allowed at appellate stage–Appeal without any substance is accordingly dismissed in limine. PLJ 1998 Karachi 436
Ss. 15 & 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need–Ground of–Commercial property–Where need of landlord as mentioned in application is duly established through evidence for which landlord must enter in witness-box and depose on oath about personal bona fide need and assign reasons for such need, Court would normally not question such need–Evidence on record clearly established need of landlord and his bona fides for running his own business–Tenant, while controverting assertions of landlord, produced hearsay evidence which did not inspire confidence–Landlord was, thus, successful in establishing his bona fide need and assigning reasons for starting his own business in shop in question–Tenant was directed to vacate the shop. PLJ 1999 Karachi 226 1992 SCMR 1296 rel. 992 SCMR 1296; 1997 CLC 605; 1972 SCMR 437; 1993 MLD 477; PLD 1976 Kar. 832 and 1980 SCMR 593 ref
Ss. 15 & 21–Tenant–Eljectment of–Personal bona fide need–Ground of—-Husband of landlady was carrying on lot of business in different firms and was in possession to extent of his share in those properties–Evidence of landlady was not confidence inspiring whereas that of tenant was consistent and its veracity could not be shaken–Landlady was hunting for some ground to seek eviction of tenant at all costs with mala fide and ulterior motives–No substance having been found in contentions of landlady, no exception could be taken to findings of Rent Controller dismissing appeal of landlady. PLJ 1999 Karachi 765
Ss. 15 and 21–Ejectment application–Acceptance of–Appeal to–Demand of enhancing rent would not disentitle respondent from getting the premises for personal bonafide need of her son–It is also not fatal to the case of respondent if her son is not examined–No supporting evidence has been produced by appellant showing that requirement is in bad faith–Held : Rent Controller had rightly allowed ejectment application on ground of personal need of respondent–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 73
Ss. 15&18–Tenant–Ejectment of–Relationship of landlord and tenant–Denial of–Challenge to–In her counter-affidavit in FRA No. 1002 of 1980, deceased landlady had herself denied relationship of landlord and tenant between her and respondent–Held: Contentions raised by learned counsel for respondent are on basis of record that appellants’ case is rebutted by their own evidence–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1991 Karachi 157
Ss. 15(2) (ii) & 18–Change of ownership of premises–Default–Ground of Legal heir sent notice of change of ownership of premises under S. 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 which was acknowledged by tenant–Tenant failed to deposit or tender rent of premises within stipulated period of 30 days from date of receipt of notice of change of ownership, and had thus committed default. PLJ 1997 Karachi 986
Ss. 15(2)(ii)(vii) & 18–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default and personal bona fide need–Ground of–Relationship of landlord and tenant–Question of- Landlord in his affidavit-in-evidence had stated that he was residing in a smaller portion of house alongwith his dependents and that he required premises for his personal use–Tenant had denied relationship of landlord and tenant contending that landlord had not issued him notice of change of ownership under S. 18 of Ordinance, 1979–Landlord had produced three documents, (1) postal receipt, (2) notice, and (3) T.C.S. receipts- Mere denial of tenant could not controvert statement of landlord with regard to issuance and service of notice of change of ownership, especially when statement of landlord was supported by three authentic documents–Tenant, even after service of notice under S. 18 of Ordinance, 1979 had neither paid rent nor be tendered same–Landlord, thus, had proved that he required premises for his personal bona fide use, especially when tenant had not been able to make out case otherwise. PLJ 1998 Karachi 72 5
Ss. 15(2)(vii) & 15-A–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need- Ground of–Once landlord who stepped in witness-box had deposed that premises were required for personal need and such statement was made on oath and presented himself for cross-examination, and such statement remained unshaken in cross-exanination, it should, in ordinary course, be deemed to be sufficient for ejectment of tenant on the ground of personal need–Legislature had provided protection to tenant by enacting S. 15-A of Ordinance, 1979–Mere invitation to offer to sell building, which was not actually sold, would not reflect rnala fides on the part of landlord–Appeal allowed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 733
Ss. 15(2)(vii) & 20–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R. 17–Plea of personal bona fide need was not raised by landlord in his ejectment application, but was raised in affidavit-in-evidence of attorney and witness of landlord–Held : Rent Controller, in circumstances, ought to have refrained from entertaining and deciding question of personal requirement of landlord in his judgment–Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 though were not applicable to proceedings for ejectment under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 but principles which were basis and foundation for administration of justice could be invoked to proceedings under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979–Landlord who desired to add ground of personal bona fide need could file application in nature of Order VI, It. 17, Civil Procedure Code for amendment of his ejectment application. PLJ 1999 Karachi 567
Ss. 15, 19 & 21 read with Transferal Property Act, ,1882 (DV of 1882), S. 52–Tenant: -Exparte ejectment of–After ejectment property was sold to a third party–Validity–Order issuing writ of possession having been set aside declaring same to be illegal, party in whose favour writ of possession was issued, had contended that as it had sold out property in dispute and had created third party interest in relation to property in dispute, any order passed in appeal against issuance of writ of possession would affect third party which had obtained possession after sale of property–Contention repelled because since transfer of property in dispute during pendency of litigation was hit by principles enshrined in S. 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 18k:’ creation of third party interest in violation of law would not deter Court from passing appropriate orders in favour of patty against which writ of possession was illegally issued–It was for third patty to seek relief against patty in whose favour writ of possession was issued. PLJ 1997 Karachi 1009
Ss. 15, 19 & 21–Tenant–Ex parte ejectment of–Challenge to–Restoration of possession–Execution order passed by Rent Controller in hot haste without any notice to opposite-party was declared to be illegal by Appellate Court–Once order of execution which had been executed dispossessing tenant was declared illegal, held was entitled to restoration of possession. PLJ 1997 Karachi 1009
Ss. 15-A & 21–Rent Controller was empowered to restore possession of premises to tenant where landlord had put in use the premises other than for his personal use for which ejectment was ordered. PLJ 1999 Karachi 226
Ss. 16 (1) & 3 — Ejectment — Challenge to — Defence — Striking off — Ascending rate of rent — Whether Fair Rent — Question of — Ascending rate of rent, being an agreed term of tenancy was considered Fair Rent which is also in line with postulates of Section 3 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance — Held: No different view at tentative level is warranted — FRA 514 of 1989 dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 245
Ss. 16(2) & 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Wilful default–Striking off defence–Tentative rent order was passed by Rent Controller for deposit of arrears of rent but instead of depositing rent in ease tenant had been depositing rent in some other case and, thus, violated orders of Rent Controller–Tenant did not file any objection to application under S. 16(2) of Ordinance–Conduct of tenant in not complying with directions was wilful and deliberate and rendered him liable to be ejected–Order of striking off defence of tenant did not suffer from any illegality. PLJ 1999 Karachi 737
Ss. 18 & 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant–Dismissal of application by Rent Controller–Status–Respondent (tenant) admitted in written statement that he was liable to pay rent–Respondent had not claimed ownership of premises in question–Rent was already determined–Respondent had himself produced order of allotment in favour of original owner who had transferred the same to petitioner–Respondent was, thus, undoubtedly tenant and would fall within scope of law–Letter of transfer of ownership was sent to respondent through registered post on his correct address–Relationship of landlord and tenant stood established between parties–Respondent had himself admitted in his cross examination that he had not paid rent to appellant, therefore, default stood established on record–Findings of Rent Controller whereby he had dismissed application for ejectment, being not correct, were set aside–Ejectment of tenant was ordered in circumstances. PLJ 1999 Karachi 253
Ss. 2 (f) and 15–Tenants–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Whether respondent having only agreement to sell in his favour, could not have filed ejectment applications under Section 15 of Ordinance–Question of–Under Section 2(f), landlord means a person who is owner or entitled to receive rent of demised premises in whatever capacity–According to sale agreement, possession has been handed over to respondent alongwith tenants in premises and entire sale consideration has been received by vendor Nawab Ali–Appellants contend that there are four sisters of vendor Nawab Ali, but none of such sisters has been produced for evidence–Burden to prove this contention lay, heavily on appellants but they failed to discharge same–Held: Even if contention of appellants is accepted, sale agreement at least will be valid to extent of Nawab Ali’s share and respondent would become co-sharer, entitled to seek ejectment in his own right. PLJ 1994 Karachi 407
Ss. 2 and 15–Ejectment application–Acceptance of–Appeal against–Property belonged to Waqaf–When wakif died, properly in question was available for inheritance and respondent being his wife could not have inherited–Application for ejectment filed by respondent as a co-owner of said property–Field : Ejectment proceedings were not by or at the instance of wakf or its Mutwali but by respondent in capacity of an owner which she could not be in view of property having already been dedicated to wakf by her late husband during his life time–Respondent and her son concealed the existence of wakf which fact was disclosed only in cross-examination–Appeal allowed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 21
Ss. 2(a) (h) & 15 — Tenant — Ejectment of — Refusal of — Challenge to –Whether machinery installed in a factory or mill can be said to be “fixtures” within meaning of Section 2(a) of Ordinance — Question of — Most satisfactory mode of construction is to ascertain meanings from statute alone — If legislature wanted to include a factory or mills within definition of a building, it could have expressed so in plain words – Held: Saw mill could not be brought within meanings of “building” as envisaged by Section 2(a) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 — Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 188
Ss. 2(f)(i), 15 & 21–Relationship of landlord and tenant–Landlord filed ejectment application against tenant on ground of default–Tenant denied relationship of landlord and tenant asserting that he was owner of premises in question–Landlord filed copy of original sale deed in respect of pren es in question stated to have been executed in his favour by original landlord–Tenant filed photocopy of similar sale deed and also failed to produce electricity bill, water charges bills in his favour while landlord successfully proved his ownership over premises by production of such documents & affidavits etc.–Appraisal of evidence–On a question put to counsel for appellant by Court as to why appellant could not produce any document like payment receipt for electricity and water charges from year 1985 when he claims to have purchased premises from landlord (Actual) learned counsel was unable to satisfy court–Similarly, as to why original agreement of sale executed by landlord (Actual) in favour of appellant was not produced before Rent Controller, learned counsel for appellant merely stated that its photostat copy was enough which was produced–Had appellant actually purchased premises in year 1985 and occupied same, he must have come into possession of documents like receipts of payment of electricity charges and water charges–In juxta position to above case respondent, who claims to have purchased this house from landlord (Actual) in 1987, has produced receipt of payment of electricity and water charges for year 1987–Held: Rent Controller has quite correctly scrutinised and discussed evidence led by parties on issue of relationship and his finding on same is neither incorrect nor absured–Appeal without force is accordingly dismissed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 333
Ss. 2(f)(j), & 27(3)–Relationship of Landlord and tenant–Jurisdiction of Rent Controller–Tenant denied relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties contending that property in dispute being of Karachi Port Trust (K.P.T.), proceedings could not be initiated before Rent Controller and that since Governor of West Pakistan had exempted properties belonging to K.P.T. from operation of provisions of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, Rent Controller could not proceed with the matter at all–Lease of property in dispute as granted by K.P.T. to landlord firstly for fifty years commencing from 1922 and secondly for another fifty years effective from 1972—Landlord, thus, for all practical purpose had legal right to use property in dispute for his benefit including to let out the same for rent—In absence of any objection on part of Karachi Port Trust Authorities with regard to renting out property to tenants by lessees/landlords, Rent controller had jurisdiction in the matter PLJ 1997 Karachi 9
Ss. 2(h) & 15(2)–Ejectment application–Whether property is commercial or residential–Question of–Property was originally a residential quarter and some shops which were carved out were rented out by original owner from. whom landlords had subsequently purchased and original owner was living with his family in the quarter till the time when same was purchased by landlord–Property in question, thus was not originally commercial in character especially when tenants had failed to lay down efore Court any document which could indicate that entire belt, where property in question was situated, had become commercialized- Ejectment application filed by landlord in circumstances was competent. PLJ 1998 Karachi 842
Ss. 2(j) & 21–Tenant–Ejectment of—Default—Ground of–Relationship of landlord and tenant–Question of—Appellant, who was in occupation of premises had admittedly received notice by respondent that he having become owner of premises in question, was entitled to receive rent- Appellant did not have any title to possess those premises or occupy the ame and he was bound to pay rent for possession/occupation of premises, therefore, he was tenant -Appellant in spite of receipt of notice did not pay rent to respondent, therefore, default was established—Order of ejectment was maintained in circumstances. PLJ 1998 Karachi 755
Ss. 21 & 13–Tenant–Ejectment of–Suit for–Dismissal of–Challenge to–It stood proved from documentary and oral evidence that rent was not deposited when it became due–Not a single rent receipt was produced by respondent/tenant and withheld material evidence whereunder adverse inference would be drawn that if it would have been produced would have gone against him–Respondent in affidavit-in-evidence has improved his case–Testimony of respondent/tenant is not confidence inspiring–Evidence of appellant/landlord is consistent with pleadings and veracity of appellant landlord could not he shaken in cross-examination and no re-butting evidence has been brought on record by respondent tenant–There is nothing on record that appellant made specific demand about payment of water and conservancy charges from respondent–Held: Appeal is allowed on ground of default Appeal accepted. PLJ 1996 Karachi 48
Ss. 21 & 16–Tenent–Ejectment of–Suit for–High Court as an Appellate Authority and appeal being in continuation of ejectment application, could exercise powers under Section 16 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance in a fit cases and non-compliance of order passed by High Court would attract penal provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the Act–Respondent/tenant has not made compliance of order passed by High Court–There has been intentional non-compliance of Courts order–Held: Defence of tenant is struck off–Order accordingly. PLJ 1996 Karachi 45
Ss. 21 & 22 read with Section 20 of General Clauses Act—Ejectment of respondents from premises on ground of personal bona fide need–Execution of agreement between parties for lease of rented premises for 3 years after ejectment orders–Appellant filed execution petition and petition under Section 20 of General Clauses Act, both were dismissed by Rent Controller–Challenge to–Whether compromise or agreement between parties could be executed between parties without permission of Rent Controller–Question of–In view of explanation to Section 22 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, in execution proceedings relating to order of ejectment, no payment, compromise or agreement shall be valid unless such payment, compromise or agreement is made before or with permission of authority passing order–Deed has been executed between parties without permission of Rent Controller passing ejectment order, therefore, lease-deed shall not be valid hence learned Rent Controller erred in not allowing execution application filed by appellant for ejectment of respondent. PLJ 1998 Karachi 446
Ss. 21 read with S. 18–Eviction application–Acceptance of–Appeal against–Main object of S. 18 is that the tenant must have positive knowledge about the change in ownership–Even an eviction application filed by a new owner is sufficient notice to the tenant about change in ownership–Appellant had her self stated that said notice was served upon her, besides no question was put up to respondent’s witness in cross-examination on this point–Held : Said notice was served upon appellant and there is relationship of landlord and tenant between parties. PLJ 1997 Karachi 1
Ss. 5 & 10–Ejectment of tenant–Default in payment of rent–Ground for–Challenge to–Statement of landlord cannot be believed regarding default particularly when landlord did not produce any record to show in shape of receipt or register about receipt of payment of rent or any other proof to show that he had issued receipts as claimed by him–Verbal statement of landlord could not be believed on basis of technicalities unless landlord had produced some evidence regarding his conduct to show it to be justified for remaining silent for long time and regarding mode of payment of rent. PLJ 1996 Karachi 612
Ss. 5 & 10–Tenancy in absence of agreement–Mode of payment and computation of default–In absence of any mutual agreement, tenancy would be covered by provisions to sections 5 and 10 of Ordinance–In all those cases, if there is no existence of any written agreement but tenancy is being carried on in accordance to any verbal agreement, then Rent Controller is first bound to determine mode of payment i.e. daily, weekly, monthly, yearly or at the will of parties–Held: It is only after determining mode of payment of rent, Rent Controller would decide as to whether default has been committed or not. PLJ 1996 Karachi 612
Ss.16(1) & 8 — Fixation of Fair Rent — Challenge to — Rent Controller maintained agreed rent between parties as Fair Rent — Tenant failed to prove pressure coercion by landlady in arriving at agreement — Even otherwise all ingredients of Section 8 of the ordinance were satisfied by mutually agreed rate –Ex Facie order by Rent Controller appeared equitable and lawful — Moreover, by expressing desire to vacate premises by tenant on specific date, it became no body’s case — Order of determination of Fair Rent maintained in appeal. PLJ 1993 Karachi 245
Tenant–Ejectment of–Case of–Ordinarily a landlord is entitled to use his property to the best of his discretion and choice and without any restraint as right to hold, acquire and possess a property is even guaranteed under constitution there are exceptional circumstances tending to show that requirement of premises for personal use was not coupled with good faith. PLJ 1996 Karachi 682
Tenant–Ejectment of–Ground of subletting premises to real brother–Appellant No. 2 was brother of Appellant No. 1 and no consideration has been passed on to appellant No. 1, therefore, it could not be said that subletting has taken place–Contention of–Appellant No. 2 says that he is the brother of appellant No. 1 but he could not be termed as tenant within the meaning of section 2 (j) of Ordinance 1979–Held, Appellant No. 2 could not be said to be heir of appellant No. 1 to be in occupation of premises after death of tenant- PLJ 1996 Karachi 130
Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal requirement–Eviction was sought on refusal to agree to exhorbitant rate of rent–Contention of–Held : Mere demand of higher rent does not by itself disentitle a landlord to seek ejectment of his. tenant on ground of personal requirement but this circumstance coupled with other facts and grounds would give rise to a reasonable inference that desire of landlord was not justified and was rather tainted with malice and ulterior motives. PLJ 1996 Karachi 682
Tenant–Ejectment of–Petition dismissed by Rent Controller–Challenge to–No agreement of tenancy produced by either side–Presumption as to date of payment of rent–Held: In the absence of the agreement of tenancy of date mutually fixed for payment of rent, rent for the month of June would fall due for payment within 60 days after close of June i.e., on or about 29th August while rent for the month of July would be payable on or about 30th of September. PLJ 1996 Karachi 655
Tenant–Ejectment of–Petition dismissed—Challenge to–Appellant’s attorney having refused to accept rent sent by cheque, respondent was left with no alternative but to deposit rent in office of Controller–Appellant himself having created circumstances to manifest that he was not inclined to accept rent sent through cheque, he is legally not entitled to make a grievance that rent was not paid–Claim of appellant for enhancement of rent from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1200/- p.m. after expiry of agreement cannot be accepted for the reason that with the expiry of tenure, agreement came to an end and same being unregistered could not be legally enforced–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 682
Tenant–Ejectment of–Section 8, 9 & 15 of Rent Ordinance has been declared un-Islamic by Shariat Court to be in direct conflict with Holy Quran & Sunnah–Contention of–It is an admitted fact that ejectment application was filed much prior to decision of Federal Shariat court of Pakistan and said decision would not have a retrospective effect upon the provisions of section 15 of ordinance–Held Article 203 (2D) Constitution of 1973, state that no such decision shall be deemed to take effect before expiry of period within which an appeal may be preferred to the Hon’able Supreme Court or where an appeal has been so preferred, before disposal of such appeal– PLJ 1996 Karachi 130
to establish that demised premises were declared and notified to be evacuee trust property, there is hardly any merit in contention that respondents had no title to property or that Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to proceed with ejectment application–It is admitted that appellant No. 1 at no point of time paid any amount of rent to respondents and thereby he committed a wilful default–Requirement of premises for use of respondents was bona [ides and in good faith–Held : Non payment of rent at all and lack of evidence in rebuttal renders case of appellant No. 1 hopeless and without any plausible defence–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 426

Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959
Ejectment application–Personal bona fide need of landlord–Ejectment ordered by Rent Controller–Challenge to–Whether non-appearance of respondent/landlord and his representation through attorney in court was fatal to his case–Question of–It will not be in interest of justice to lay down that in every case where party does not appear or engages his appearance through attorney, adverse inference should be drawn against him–Such rule, if laid down, would result into great hardship in cases where parties, for instance, reside abroad, who will have to sue and defendant themselves through their attorney–Respondent land-lord constituted his real brother as his attorney who is well versed with circumstances of family and is not stranger and he satisfactorily deposed about bonafide personal use of his brother–Evidence adduced by appellant on record does not satisfactorily rebut bona fide personal requirement of respondent in respect of shop in dispute–Held : Non-appearance of respondent and his representation through attorney in court was not fatal to case–Held further : Concurrent finding of two courts below in favour of respondent land-lord cannot be interfered–Appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. PLJ 1998 SC 1756
S. 13(2)(vi)–Contention that shop and Khokha were not in dilapidated condition and no reconstruction was required which hardly needs any consideration as it is not obligatory for landlord to prove that disputed premises were in dilapidated condition and more so, no such embargo has been laid down in Section 13(2)(vi) of Ordinance VI of 1959 to prove dilapidated condition of premises. PLJ 2001 SC 1398
S. 13(2)–Default–Contention of learned counsel for appellants that respondent has withdrawn rent, as such; default, if any, has been waived, it is suffice to observe that it is well settled law that mere withdrawal of rent does not amount to waiver of right of land lord to apply for eviction on ground of default. PLJ 2003 Quetta 155 [P. 160] D
S. 13(2)–Deposit of rent by tenant without mentioning name of land-lord–Effect–Rent deposited by appellants without mentioning name of land lord and number of shop, was not a lawful tender within meaning of Section 13(2) (i) of Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance and learned Rent Controller rightly ordered for eviction of appellants from premises in dispute on ground of default in payment of rent. PLJ 2003 Quetta 155
S. 13(2)–Due tendering of rent–Meaning of–Rent for disputed period was deposited by tenants with Rent Controller within due time but name of person in whose favour deposit was made was not mentioned–Similarly Municipal number of shop was also not mentioned–Only question which needs consideration is as to whether such a deposit can be termed/considered due tendering of rent within meaning of Section 13(2) of Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959–According to learned counsel, it can be; because appellants have deposited rent in time but due to inadvertence they have not mentioned name of land-lord and number of shop in bank challans–Moreover, land-lord has withdrawn rent, as such; he cannot claim that tenants have committed any default and asked for eviction on ground of default–At best it can be termed as technical default but not willful or deliberate one–Therefore, learned Rent Controller should have exercised discretion in favour of appellants in view of wording of Section 13(2) (1) of Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. PLJ 2003 Quetta 155 [P. 158] A
S. 13(2)–Lawful tender of rent–It has come on record through evidence of respondent that both appellants were depositing rent in his favour till December 1998 but thereafter they suddenly started depositing rent without mentioning his name in relevant column of challan–This assertion of respondent/land-lord has not been rebutted by appellants–Even in their statements before Rent Controller they have not offered any explanation for non mentioning name of land-lord/respondent in bank challan–Nor had they stated that this omission was inadvertently–In such circumstances it can be safely concluded that omission of land-lord’s name was deliberate and not due to some inadvertence and deposit of rent without mentioning name of land-lord cannot be termed as lawful tender. PLJ 2003 Quetta 155 [P. 160] C
S. 14–Art. 185(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973–Leave to appeal is granted in two petitions to consider inter alia contention of petitioner that whether subsequent application for eviction filed by respondent before Rent Controller on ground of personal and bona fide requirement of shop alongwith a `Khokha’ was barred on principle of res judicata contained in Section 14 of Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, as previous application filed by respondent for eviction of petitioner from `Khokha’ on ground of personal and bona fide requirement was dismissed on merits which attained finality. PLJ 2001 SC 1398
S. 14–Moot question was regarding applicability of Section 14 of Ordinance VI of 1959 to consider as to whether order passed in previous round of litigation by learned Rent Controller does constitute res judicata for filing fresh eviction application which was previously rejected–Held: Previous order of learned Rent Controller that Khokha was not required for personal bona fide use would not constitute a bar as contained in Section 14 of Ordinance VI of 1959 for filing fresh eviction application which would be examined in light of changed scenario and decided on its own merits–There is no denial of fact that circumstances cannot remain static and unchanged for an indefinite period which cannot be ignored and thus repeated and successive eviction application can be filed subject to availability of changed situation. PLJ 2001 SC 1398
S. 14–Rejection of an earlier application will not always act as a bar under Section 14 of Ordinance even in cases where eviction is sought for reconstruction as every fresh need or desire to reconstruct would give a fresh cause of action–Law of constructive res judioata as enunciated by Section under reference would only come into play when on identical reasons and in identical circumstances, after earlier unsuccessful attempt, ejectment of tenant is subsequently, once again, sought–It does not need much imagination to appreciate that a building which did not need demolishing at a certain time would not become so deteriorated after lapse of a dozen or so years, as to warrant demolition or reconstruction.” PLJ 2001 SC 1398
S. 15 & 13(2)(VI) & 13(5)–Ejectment of tenant on ground of reconstruction–In case any person who desires to file eviction application on ground of personal requirement and reconstruction has to be landlord and owner’ of premises too–From per usal of section 13(2)(VI) main condition for allowing application on ground of reconstruction is satisfaction of Rent Controller–If landlord is not owner of property and obtains sanction for reconstruction in name of actual owner, same cannot be said to be invalidated–Appellants applied for sanction from Municipal Corporation in name of K deceased who is pre-decessor-in-interest because property still exists in revenue record in his name and sanction was granted by Municipal Corporation to appellants for reconstruction of new building on site i.e. property in dispute–No objection was raised by Municipal Corporation at the time of granting approved map in favour of appellants, in as much as representative of Municipal Corporation appeared before Court and tendered building permit and approved map in evidence–No objection was raised at that time–Even otherwise after death of K deceased appellants have been admitted as landlords of premises in dispute by respondents–It has been held by Supreme Court that if sanction plan is not in name of actual landlords, still they are protected under provisions of section 13(5) of Ordinance–Held : Plea that they did not have proper approved map in their favour is devoid of force and approved map could not be invalidated on said ground. PLJ 1998 Quetta 128
S. 15–Ejectment petition by landlord on ground of personal need–Whether landlord is required to disclose nature of business which he intends to set up–Question of-:It is not requirement of law that description of business intended to be started in premises in dispute land necessarily be given by landlord–If landlord was going to start new business in premises in dispute, he need not state nature of his business either in ejectment petition or in his statement before Rent Controller–Appellant in his statement has stated that he is jobless and has not vacated any premises nor rented out any premises in same vivinity–Said portion of statement of landlord was not rebutted–Held : Personal requirement was independently proved–Appeal without merit is accordingly dismissed. PLJ 1998 Quetta 297
S. 15–Ejectment petition on ground of nuisance–It has come on record that buses of appellant picked and dropped passengers in front of shop and it has also come on record that house of respondent is adjacent to shop in dispute–Even respondent and his witnesses have not denied pick and drop of passengers from shop in dispute–Landlord has proved that passengers are picked and dropped in morning and evening due to which front of his house is always overcrowded and it has become difficult for him to use passage of his house–Held : Act of pick and drop by respondent itself is source of perpetual nuisance at time of arrival and departure of house–Issue of nuisance has also been proved same is decided in affirmative. PLJ 1998 Quetta 297
S. 15–Eviction of tenants on ground of demolition of shops in question and inclusion of the same in Imam Bargah–Rent Controller ordered eviction of tenants on such ground–Validity–Objection that eviction applications were not properly filed was repelled on the ground that no such objection was taken before Rent Controller–Such objection was taken for the first time in appeal before the High Court where upon respondents filed resolution of the Anjuman authorising its president to conduct the proceedings on behalf of said Anjuman–Eviction application was thus, properly filed by respondents. PLJ 2001 Quetta 1
S. 15–Personal requirement and default–Ground of–Eviction application-Dismissal of–Challenge to—Facts deposed by witnesses and Attorney of appellant have independently proved factum of appellant having no other house besides house in dispute at Quetta–It is not a requirement of law that landlady should come and depose about her personal requirement–Attorney who appeared before court has deposed about personal requirement of appellant and her children–Statement of Attorney was not shaken–Learned Rent Controller has wrongly decided question of personal requirement against appellant–Regarding default, mere production of rent challan is not sufficient to prove that rent has been deposited–Tenant is under legal obligation to prove that no default has been committed by him specifically when ground of default has been agitated by landlady–Respondent deposited rent for Sept. 1993 in year 1994, therefore, tenant had failed to show that he had deposited rent within 60 day of alleged default–Thus respondent committed default in payment of rent–Appeal accepted and Eviction application filled by appellant is allowed. PLJ 1998 Quetta 175
S. 15–Provisions of C.P.C.–Applicability to proceeding under Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959–Extent–Plea taken in eviction application not supported by evidence on record but different plea set up in evidence–Effect–Provisions of C.P.C. though not applicable strictly yet the principles thereof were applicable to rent applications–Facts alleged in pleadings have to be proved by producing evidence–Where a party puts to jnention material facts in plaint, constituting cause of action, such party would not be permitted to lead evidence unless amendment was allowed in that behalf–Neither a party could be allowed to lead evidence, which was at variance with pleadings, nor could be permitted to depart from pleadings, and prove a case not set up in plaint–Respondents plea in eviction application was that by demolition of shops they intended to include the area in Imam-Bargah so as to expand the same–Representative of respondent in his evidence before Rent Controller had altogether changed his stand by stating that they wanted to reconstruct new shops in place of old shops and for that purpose they had obtained sanction from the authorities–Main ground of eviction of tenant, was thus, not proved–Rent Controller, thus, had erred in holding that assertions set up in eviction application stood proved entitling landlords to get tenants evicted therefrom–Order of eviction passed by Rent Controller was set aside in circumstances. PLJ 2001 Quetta 1
S., 15 read with S. 13 (5-B)–Restoration of possession of rented shop to appellant after fixation of increased rent by Civil Judge–Challenge to–Whether rent could be increased when property was not demolished and reconstructed for which purpose it was got vacated from appellant–Question of–In case where no addition, improvement or alteration of non-residential building or rented land has been carried out at landlords, expenses and at the request of tenant: determination of fair rent of such building or rented land within meaning of sub-section (1) & 2(2) of S. 5 of Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 would not he permissible for future increase of fair rent—Landlords have led no evidence that possession of shop in question was restored to appellant/tenant after re-construction of shop which could have entitled them to claim for fixation of rent of premises in view of criteria provided under section 13(5-B) of Balochistan Ordinance–Held: Impugned Order passed by Civil Judge was not sustainable in law–Appeal accepted and order set aside. PLJ 1998 Quetta 65
Ss. 13(2) & 13(6)–Difference between S. 13(2) and 13(6) of Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959–There is mark difference between provisions of Section 13(2) and Section 13 (6) of Ordinance–In former case Rent Controller has been given discretion not to grant ejectment application on ground of non-payment of rent, if facts of case so warrant–Words “the Controller may make an order directing tenant to put land-lord in possession of building” have been used in Section 13(2) of Ordinance whereas in Section 13(6) has been provided that if a tenant makes default of rent order passed under above sub-section, his defence shall be struck off and land lord be put into possession of property–Use of word “shall” in Section 13(6) of Ordinance is in contrast to word “may” used in sub-section (2) of Section 13, of Ordinance, therefore, Rent Controller has discretion in matter falling under Section 13(2) of Ordinance. PLJ 2003 Quetta 155
Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979
S. 16(2)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default in payment of rent–Ground of–Striking off defence of tenant–Challenge to–It is matter of record that Miscellaneous Rent Case No. 1544 of 1991 was filed by appellant in same court where he deposited rent–Payment for period of January to July 1991 was disputed as appellant claimed to have paid but respondent denied to have received same–Order of deposit of arrears of rent for said period, was passed at back of appellant–In substance, due rent has been deposited, but technically, rent order dated 23-9-1991 has not been complied with–Held: There is force in contention that had appellant knowledge of rent order requiring him to deposit arrears and monthly rent in court, he would not have moved on 25-9-1991 Miscellaneous Rent Case No. 1544 of 1991 for deposit of rent in court–Appeal accepted and case remanded to trial court. PLJ 1994 Karachi 315
S.15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Finding of Rent Controller as to default in payment of rent is un-exceptionable–Finding on point of subletting is not open to interference because respondent filed affidavit that appellant had sublet premises to Kallan, but appellant has not denied same in his affidavit-in-evidence–Issue about personal requirement of shop has also rightly been decided in favour of respondent–Held: There is no merit in these appeals–Appeals dismissed. PLJ 1992 Karachi 97
S.16(2)–Tenant–Non-deposit of arrears of rent by–Striking off defence of–Challenge to–There is total non-compliance of order of Rent Controller which had forced him to pass order striking off defence of appellant–Held: Appellant himself had chosen not to deposit rent as ordered by Controller and in these circumstances, Controller was perfectly justified in striking off defence of appellant and directing his ejectment from shop in dispute–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1994 Karachi 397
S. 14(4)–Tenant handed over Possession of property to landlord for reconstruction–Restoration of same dimension & location–Determination of–Appliction to–Dismissal of–Challenge to–It will be just and proper, if Rent Controller determines location and dimension of shop taken from appellant–Held : Courts are established to solve problems of public and not to create problems for them. PLJ 1996 Karachi 410
S. 15 read with S. 12((2) of Civil Proceeding Code, 1908–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bonafide need (landlord claims that he was unemployed and wanted to run shop)–Ground of–Eviction allowed–Concealment of fact/fraud and misrepresentation by landlord–Challenge to–Eviction application was filed on 25.11.1989 and landlord got service on 4.11.1990–Therefore, on the day when eviction application u/s 15 of Ordinance 1979 was filed, landlord was not in service–It is a case where landlord has concealed a material fact which has misled tenant to frame his defence, it does not. amount to fraud or misrepresentation–Held : Case remanded to trial court for giving opportunity to parties to lead fresh evidence. PLJ 1997 Karachi 977

Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1952
S. 13–AJK Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 44–Relationship of landlord and tenant, existence of–Whether order of deposit of Rent during pendency of Civil Court with regard to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant are illegal–Question of–Mere pendency of civil suit in court. cannot defeat prima facie established title for purpose of rent cases under Rent Restriction ordinance, moreso, when documents produced in support of title by respondent are neither disputed nor denied by petitioner through replication–Held : Order passed by Rent Controller is just and fair–Petition without merit is according dismissed. PLJ 1997 (AJ & K) 126
S. 4–Determination of fair rent–Whether section 14 of Ordinance conies into play while making inquiry u/s 4–Question of–Perusal of Section-4, which deals with fixing of fair rent, reveals that provisions identical to sub-section 8 of Section 14 is not expressly available while holding inquiry under section 4–Sub-section 8 of section 14 finds place in section which deals with eviction of tenant by land-lord–Held : Proceedings before Rent Controller were not under section 14, thus sub-section 8 of Section 14 stricto senso is not applicable. PLJ 1997 (AJ & K) 126
S. 13 (2) (iv) Tenent–Ejectment of–Conversion of a residential building into a commercial one after reconstruction–Ground of–Whether provisions of Section 13 (2) (iv) of Ordinance prevent a residential building from being converted, after construction, into a commercial one–Leave to appeal is granted to consider this question–Granted–Leave to appeal. PLJ 1996 SC 412