EnglishFrenchPortugueseRussianUrdu

Section 13

Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959

 

Eviction of tenant

 

(1) A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted there from in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, or otherwise, and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after given the tenant a reasonable opportunity of show in cause against the application, is satisfied that-

(i)         The tenant has not paid or tendered rent due by him in respect Of the building or rented land, within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord, or in the absence for any such agreement, [within sixty days from the period] for which the rent is payable; or

(ii)        The tenant has, without written consent of the landlord-

(a)   Transferred his right under the lease or sublet entire building or rented land or any portion thereof, or

(b)   Used the building or rented land for a purpose other than that for which it was leased ^or has infringed any condition of the tenure or which the building or rented land is held by the land]; or

(iii)          The tenant has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building or rented land; or

(iv)         The tenant has been guilty of such acts and conduct as are a nuisance to the occupants of buildings in the neighborhood; or

(v)         Where the building situated in a place other than a hill-station, the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause; or

(vi)       The building or rented land is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for the reconstruction or erection of a building on the site, and the landlord his obtained the necessary sanction for the said reconstruction or erection from the Town Improvement Trust, Municipal Corporation, Municipal Committee or Town Committee for the are where such building or rented land is situated;]
the Controller may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession for the building or rented land and if the Controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application:

Provided that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession for the building or reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and may extend such time so as not to exceed four months in the aggregate:

[Provided further that where the application made by the landlord is on the ground mentioned in clause (i) involving default there under in respect of rent of one month only and the tenant on the first date of herein gambits his liability to pay the rent due from him the Controller shall, if he satisfied that the tenant has not made any default under clause (i) on any previous occasion, directs the tenant to deposit all the rent due from him on or before a date not exceeding fifteen days to be fixed' or the purpose and upon such deposit being made he shall make an order rejecting the application. If such deposit is not made he shall he shall make an order that the landlord he put into possession of the property without taking any further proceedings in the case.'

Explanation-fot the purpose of clause (i)-

(i)         Where the water charges or electricity charges or both are payable by the tenant to the landlord such charges shall be deemed to be rent;

(ii)        Rent remitted by money-order to the landlord or deposited in the office of the Controller having jurisdiction in the area where the building or rented land is situated shall be deemed to have been duly tendered.]

(3)

(a)        A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-

(i)         In the case for a residential building if-

(a) He requires it in good faith for his own occupation or for the occupation of any of his children;

(b) He is not occupying another residential building, suitable for his needs at the time, in the same urban area in which such building is situated; and

(c) He has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Ordinance in the said urban area;

(ii)        In the case of a non-residential building or a Scheduled building or rented land, if-

(a) He requires it in good faith for his own use or for the use of any of his [**] children;

(b) He or his said child is not occupying in the same urban area in which such building is situated for the purpose for his business any other such building or rented land, as the case may be, suitable for his needs at the time; and

(c) He has not vacated such a building or rented land without sufficient cause after the commencement for this Ordinance, in the said urban area:

Provided that where the tenancy is for a specified period agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant the landlord shall not be entitled to apply under this sub-section before me expiry of such period:

Provided further that where the landlord had obtained possession of a residential, Scheduled or non-residential building or rented land under the provisions of sub-paragraph (i) or sub-paragraph (ii) he shall not be entitled to apply again under the said sub-paragraphs for the possession of any other building of the same class or rented land unless such residential, scheduled or non-residential building or land is not longer suitable for his needs at the time.

(d) the Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide, make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession for the building or rented land on such date as may be specified by the Controller and if the Controller is not satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application:

Provided that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and may extend such time so as not to exceed four months in the aggregate:

[Provided further that if the application is in respect for a residential building, the Controller shall direct the tenant within four weeks of the application to put the landlord in possession of the building if, after a summary enquiry, he is satisfied that the tenant, his wife or any of his dependent children owns a residential building within the same urban area or owned such a building within sixty days preceding the commencement of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1936.]

(4) Where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building or rented land in pursuance of an order made under sub-paragraph (i) or subparagraph (ii) for paragraph (a) for sub-section (3), does not himself or where the building has been got vacated for the occupation of any of his children, such child does not occupy it within one month of the date of obtaining possession, [or having been so occupied is relet within two months of the said date to any person other than the original tenant] the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of such building or rented land and the Controller shall make an order accordingly.

(5) Where a landlord has obtained possession of a building in pursuance of an order under clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of this section and does not have the building demolished within a period of four months from the date for taking possession of the same or does not construct the new building within a further period of two years after the expiry of the period of four months from the date of taking possession of the same he shall, unless he satisfies the Court that he was unable to construction the building within the prescribed time for reasons beyond his control, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both.

(5-A.Where a landlord has been convicted under the provisions of sub-section (5), the tenant, who has been evicted from the building or rented landing respect of which the landlord is convicted, may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of such building, or rented land, and except in the case of a building which has been demolished, the Controller shall make an order accordingly.

(5-B)Where, in pursuance of an order under clause (vi) of sub-section (2), a landlord has obtained possession of a building (in this sub-section referred to as the old building), and constructs a new building on the same site, the tenant who was evicted from the old building may, before the completion of the new building and its occupation by another person, apply to the Controller for an order directing that he be put in possession for such area in the new building as does not exceed the area of the old building of which he was in occupation, and the Controller shall make an order accordingly in respect of the area applied for or such smaller area, as considering the location and type of the new building and the needs of the tenant, he deems just, and on payment of rent to be determined by him on the bases of rent of similar accommodation in the locality.

(6) In proceedings under this section on the first date of hearing or as soon as possible after that date and before issues are framed, the Controller shall direct the tenant to deposit regularly till the final decision of the case, before the ''[fifteenth] day of each month, rent due from him. If there is any dispute about the amount of rent due or the rate of rent, the Controller shall determine such amount approximately and direct that the same be deposited by the tenant before a date to be fixed for the purpose. If the tenant makes default in the compliance of such an order, then if he is the petitioner, his application shall be dismissed summarily and if he is the respondent, his defence shall be struck off and the landlord put into possession of the property without taking any further proceedings in the case.

[The Controller shall finally determine the amount of rent due from the tenant and direct that the same be paid to the landlord, subject to adjustment of the approximate amount deposited by the tenant.]

(7) Where the Controller is satisfied that any application made by a landlord for the eviction of a tenant is frivolous or vexatious, the Controller may direct that compensation not exceeding ten times the monthly rent be paid by such landlord to the tenant.

(8) The rent deposited by the tenant under this section shall, subject to the final determination of rent as payable by the tenant, be paid to the landlord at the conclusion of the proceedings or on such earlier date as may be specified by the Controller.

 

Court Decisions

 

Agreement of tenancy :– Signatures of petitioner on alleged agreement of tenancy were falsified not only by the evidence of Handwriting Expert produced by the respondent himself but also by the evidence of witnesses which in fact supported contention of petitioner that neither executant nor one of the witnesses was present at the time when document in question, was allegedly executed‑‑‑Agreement of tenancy was, thus, not proved in circumstances. 1995 M L D 298

 

Ancestral property—Partition of such property by way of family arrangements by means of settlement/agreements—Non-registration of such document—Effect—Registration of such document not compulsory—Ownership, in absence of registration, can devolve upon landlord as one of the legal heirs and he can file ejectment petition. 2004 S C M R 126

 

Applicability of Civil Procedure Code. Rent Controller's powers to recall his earlier order. Constitutional petition against interim order of Rent Controller. Competency. Civil Procedure Code does not apply .16 rent proceedings stricto' senso, however, equitable principles laid down in the Code. can be applied by Rent Controller to advance Justice. Provision to O.IX, R. 13 C.P.C. was thus not applicable; however, on general plane Rent Controller is not precluded on basis of natural Justice to recall an order made ex-parte against tenant on the ground that be was precluded on relevant date from appearing due to sufficient cause. Rent Controller while passing impugned order recalling earlier order had given valid reasons for impleading him as a party. Person who had sub-let premises in question was not only necessary but proper party. Rent Controller having earlier deleted original tenant's name ex-parte was Justified subsequently to recall his earlier order. Petitioner having filed Constitutional petition against interim order, same on that score was also not competent.- P.L.J.2000 Lah. 1970.

 

Application for ejectment of tenant for personal use of premises Ejectment application was dismissed by Rent Controller but granted by Appellate forum. Evidence on record produced by landlord clearly indicated that two grown-up sons of landlord were of marriageable age and he required to accommodate his sons after their marriage in rented portion of house which was .part and parcel of house occupied by landlord himself. Such evidence having not been controverted by tenant through cogent evidence was sufficient to prove that landlord required property in question, in good faith for accommodating need of his sons who were to be married. Appellate forum, after considering evidence on record had come to conclusion that rented portion was required in good faith and bonafide manner by landlord because of need of his elder son, whom he intended to marry. Findings recorded by Appellate forum on question of personal use do not suffer from any misreading of evidence on record or any error of law. No ground was thus, made out for interference in constitutional Jurisdiction.  P.L.J.2000 Lah. 130 =2000 MLD 891. Provision of Civil Procedure Code 1908, were not stricto senso applicable to proceedings before Rent Controller, however, broad and equitable principles regulating procedure of proceedings before Rent Controller can always be invoked and attracted in the interest of Justice and fair play.  P.L.J.2001 SC 209 = 2003. SCMR 577.

           

 Application for eviction of tenant filed by one of several co-owners. Competency. Eviction application can be filed by one co-owner without Joining other co-owners, as co-owners is a landlord within the scope of definition of "landlord" appearing is S. 2of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.  P.L.J.2000 SC 919.

 

Appreciation of evidence :- Order for ejectment of tenant from demised premises was maintained upto High Court. Validity. Leave was granted to consider whether in the circumstances of case, absence of counsel for the appellant on the ground of his illness duly supported by medical certificate issued by his physician and his personal affidavit had been rightly brushed aside by Rent Controller in his impugned order without considering request of the counsel for adjournment, had unjustifiably struck off appellant's defence without providing him opportunity to file written statement within Court hours on that day and further that the impugned order had not been Justifiably upheld by First Appellate Court as well as the High Court.-P.L.J.2001 SC 313 = PLD 2001 SC 372.

 

Ejectment of tenants ordered by two Courts below was set aside by High Court on the ground that objector in possession of part of property in question, being not a party to ejectment proceedings, order of ejectment relating to him was not warranted. Objector had appeared as a witness of tenant, in ejectment proceedings and got his statement recorded in Court. Objector, thus, was aware of ejectment proceedings and if at all, he had any right or interest in property whereupon ejectment of tenants had been sought, be could file application for his impleadment in ejectment application. Objector having filed no such application during ejectment proceedings, he could not make belated objection petition during execution proceedings objecting that he was not a party in ejectment proceedings. Questions raised in objection application were essentially questions of fact which were adequately resoled by two Courts below, therefore, High Court in its constitutional petition could not interfere with concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence on record. Impugned Judgment of High Court was set aside and that of Courts below was restored. Objector having involved decree holder in frivolous litigation, compensatory special costs were imposed upon him to be paid to decree holders.  P.L.J.2001 SC 666 = 2001 SCMR 683. 

 

Court, while noticing delaying tactics of appellant (tenant) before Rent Controller nonetheless noted that when council was engaged, he had sought adjournment on the ground of his illness duly supported by not only the medical certificate issued by competent doctor but also his personal affidavit. Court on consideration of contentions raised by counsel for the parties and perusal of-record and ratio of Shafi Muhammad's case (1990 SCMR 530), accepted appeal, set aside orders passed by Courts below and upheld by the High Court through impugned Judgment. Case was remanded to Rent Controller to decide the same afresh on merits.  P.L.J.2001 SC 313 = PLD 2001 SC 372.

 

Leave to appeal was granted to consider if landlady required premises in question in good faith for her own use and for the use of her own son.-P.L.J.2001 SC 119 = 2001 SCMR 550. Only property of landlords being a factory, was vacated having suffered loss in business in May, 1984. Out of other properties with tenants, only one was rented out after re-construction in 1983, record showing that requirement of landlords emerged in December, 1984. Held, earlier renting out of any similar properties in 1983 would not create a legal bar.  P.L.J.1988 SC10.

 

Appeal :– Relationship of landlord and tenant between parties falls within purview of section 13 and is appealable under section 15 of Ordinance.  P.L.J.1996 SC 1610 = 1996 SCMR 1603.

 

Assertion of a landlord on oath as to requirement of premises for his personal use, has to be accepted as bona fide consistent with his averment in his application for ejectment were neither shaken in cross-examination nor disproved in rebuttal. Assertion of claim of personal requirement made on oath deserved to be accepted as bona fide and landlords were able to prove that they required premises for their bona fide personal use.-P.L.J.1998 SC 944.

 

Bill of Water Charges :-  There being no independent bill for water charges in regard to premises under tenancy, petitioner to be under obligation to pay such charges directly to landlord (at rate agreed upon between parties)  P.L.J.1984 Lah. 257.

 

Bona fide personal need of landlord :- Contention that other properties being available and not mentioned in plaint. Plea of personal need could not be treated as bona fide. It is basic law of pleadings that evidence is not required to be mentioned therein, therefore, the landlord is not obliged under law to mention details of ail other properties that he owns and occupy in same urban area. All that is required that landlord should plead that he needs property in occupation of a certain tenant for his own need and he does not occupy any other property in same urban area suitable for his need.-P.L.J.1996 Lah. 513 = 1996 PTD 1825.

           

Even a solitary statement of landlord is sufficient to prove his bona fides. 2004 C L C 176

           

Landlord in his evidence had categorically stated that he had purchased premises in question from its previous owner and that same was required by him and his sons for running hotel as he and his sons were Jobless. Tenant had brought nothing on record to show that landlord and his sons did not require premises in question for their personal use and occupation. Landlord's, requirement of premises for himself and his sons thus, stood proved.  P.L.J.1999 Qta. 27 = 1999 MLD 2117.

           

Condonation of delay – Provisions of Limitation Act, 1908 – Applicability-Provisions of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908, were not applicable to proceedings under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. 2001 CLC 647

           

Constitutional Jurisdiction in rent matters. Where main object of tenant appeared to be to delay proceedings which were quasi-Judicial in nature, Constitutional Jurisdiction being discretionary relief could not be exercised to defeat object of law. Tenant due to his conduct was not entitled to discretionary relief.-P.L.J.1998 Lah. 396.

           

Constitutional petition against interlocutory order of Rent Controller. Rent Controller directed tenant to deposit alleged arrears of rent by specified date. Tenant instead of depositing rent challenged order of deposit by filing Constitutional petition. Validity. Constitutional petition against interlocutory order was not maintainable in the same manner as appeal was not maintainable against such order. Where defence of tenant was struck off, he would have immediate remedy to prefer appeal which would be considered to be efficacious remedy. Pendency of Constitutional petition would be responsible for delay in administration of Justice. Constitutional petition being not maintainable against interlocutory order of Rent Controller, same was dismissed.  P.L.J.1997 Lah. 1600 = 1997 CLC 50 = NLR 1997 Civil 212 = 1997Law Notes 4

 

Constitutional petition‑‑‑Order of ejectment against alleged tenant maintained in appeal‑Relationship of landlord and tenant not being in existence between parties, order of ejectment passed against alleged tenant by Rent Controller as maintained in appeal, was without jurisdiction and same was not maintainable: 1996 M L D 1543

 

Court:-  Word “Court” used in S. 13(5) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and Rent Controller’ mentioned in S. 13(5-A) of the said ordinance, manifest the intention of Legislature that both the words are not synonymous to each other but have been used in different meanings – Rent Controller is a person a designate and not a Court—Before filing of application under S. 13(5-A) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for restoration of possession before Rent Controller, it is essential for tenant to exhaust the remedy provided by S. 13(5) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, because action under subsection (5-A) of the ordinance, is subject to decision of Court made under S. 13(5) of west Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction ordinance, 1959, that too if Court convicts the landlord under S. 13(5)—Word “ court” has not been defined in West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, nor any procedure has been prescribed thereunder for trial of the offence which has been made punishable under S. 13(5) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, means a court set up for trial of offences under S. 29 of Cr.P.C. PLD 2003 Quetta 68

 

Default in payment of rent :- None of the witnesses produced by landlord had said even a word about non‑payment of rent by tenant‑‑‑Tenant while appearing as his own witness had, however, deposed that he paid the rent regularly ‑‑‑ Burden of proof could have shifted to tenant, had landlord asserted by entering in the witness‑box that rent was not paid by tenant ‑‑‑ Pleadings, where landlord had asserted non‑payment of rent could not be treated as substitute for evidence‑‑­ Both parties, however, having led evidence, question of burden of proof became immaterial ‑‑‑ Landlord having not produced any evidence on question of default, tenant's categorical statement that he had paid the Tent regularly to landlord, could not be discarded ‑‑‑ Rent Controller had rightly come to conclusion that plea of default was not proved ‑‑‑ Appellate Court's judgment to the contrary thus, could not be upheld ‑‑‑ Appeal was accepted and judgment of lower Appellate Court was set aside and that of Rent Controller was restored. 1991 C L C 1329

           

Tenant had committed deliberate default by paying less rent each month to what was actually fixed by Rent Controller. Non depositing of full rent as determined by Tribunal of competent Jurisdiction, during pendency of Constitutional petition certainly constitutes default on part of petitioner/tenant and he is as such not entitled to indulgence of court particularly in case of writ Jurisdiction.  P.L.J.1996 Lah. 1497= 1996 MLD 1163.

 

When tenant had deposited tentative rent but could not demonstrate before Rent Controller that he had complied with direction of Controller. He should not suffer merely of the reason that he had been a bit slack in placing the necessary documents on record. Case remanded to show whether the direction of Rent Controller had been complied with.-P.L.J.1996 SC 1807 = 1996 SCMR 349.

 

Provision of S. 13 (as amended) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. Postulates that on admission of default by tenant, Rent Controller would direct tenant to deposit the same and on such deposit Rent Controller would dismiss eviction application. Tenant had although admitted his liability towards payment of rent yet he had taken stand contrary to written statement. Even where notice under Section 13-A relating to change of ownership was not proved (still filing of eviction application would amount to notice under Section 13-A of the Ordinance and tenant was under legal obligation to have made payment of rent from date landlord had acquired title of premises. Tenant admittedly having committed default was liable to be evicted from premises in question.-P.L.J.1999 Qta. 27 = 1999MLD 2117. Property in dispute required for personal use. Relationship between landlord and tenant disputed; Ejectment application accepted by Rent Controller and upheld in appeal to Addl. District Judge. Impugned Judgment appealed against in High Court. Receipts of rent found prepared in connivance with son of respondent. Appellant simply tried to take advantage of the dispute between father arid the son who sided the appellant for his obvious interest. Both the lower Courts rightly upheld title of respondent. No illegality or informity found committed by lower Courts.  P.L.J.1999 Lah. 1610.

 

Fair rent determined by High Court was Rs. 800/- P.M., although appellant paid only Rs. 200/- P.M.. Thus, he has clearly made default in terms of section 5-A read' with Section 13(2) (i)  P.L.J.1997 Lah. 1103 = 1997 CLC 1658 = 1997 Law Notes 729.

           

Question of title was decided in Civil Court by parties. It was ultimately held upto S.C.of Pakistan that respondents/ landlords were transferee owners of property and that petitioner/tenant had nothing to do with aforesaid property. Denial of petitioner to be tenant under respondents/landlords would be denial to pay rent to them. They cannot be now allowed to say that they were ready to make payment of rent, as default had become patent after denial of relationship of landlord and tenant on principle that one cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate simultaneously. There is no latent or patent defect in impugned order passed by Rent Controller or hy lower appellate Court.  P.L.J.1998 Lah. 446 = 1998 MLD934.

 

Word "default" in S. 13(2)(i) denotes something more than mere non-payment of rent. Non-payment of rent on basis of statutory increase of rent would not make tenant a defaulter.  P.L.J.1998 SC 944.

 

Respondent has sought ejectment of appellant on grounds of default as well as personal need. Initially landlord has examined himself and has brought on record statement of his son for whose need property in dispute is required. Admittedly need of a landlord includes needs of his dependent member. Thus said fact that notice talks of his own need does not make any different. Even otherwise he has examined his son who has supported respondent. So far as question of demand of higher rent is concerned, suffice it to say that said offer was not accepted by tenant. Had that offer been accepted, matter would have come to an end. It is earnest desire of each and every landlord to get maximum rent so this desire to increase rent does not negate bona fide. requirement of a landlord. Pleas raised by learned counsel for appellant were raised before appellant Court and both Courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of matter in an exhaustive manner. No Justification or legal defect in Judgments of Courts below has been pointed out-P.L.J.2000 Lah. 1940.

 

Whether appellant was defaulter and whether service of notice with regard to increase in rent was mandatory. Both courts below concurrently found that rent was regularly deposited and no default in that regard committed. Regarding statutory increase, respondent neither pleaded that notice was served upon appellant for payment of rent in terms of statutory increase nor led any evidence. In absence of any demand, it cannot be construed that appellant had committed wilful default. View taken by Additional District Judge is violative of rule laid by Supreme Court.  P.L.J.1998 Lah. 803 = 1998 CLC 1054.

 

Defence, striking off – Time-barred arrears of rent – Failure to file appeal within time against order passed under S.I 3(6) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 – Rent Controller struck off the defence of the tenant for non-compliance of the tentative rent order – Appeal against the order was dismissed by the Appellate Court as being time-barred – Contention of the tenant was that since the order was regarding the time-barred arrears of rent, therefore, the order of the Rent Controller was void and limitation did not run against the void order – Validity – Panics were bound to file appeals within limitation against the void orders after the same had come to their knowledge – Where tenant was aware of the orders of the Rent Controller and no appeal was filed within time, appeal was rightly dismissed by the Appellate Court. 2001 CLC 647 Muhammad Raz Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. PLD 1997 SC 397 rel. 

 

Delayed application for striking off defence, whether waiver of default – Leave to appeal was granted by S.C to consider, whether the landlord having failed to file any application for striking off defence of the tenants on account of alleged default in the payment of difference in arrears of rent for more than three years, the Rent Controller had rightly refused to strike off defence of the tenants as the action on the part of landlord amounted to waiver of the default, 2001 SCMR 844 Ghulam Muhammad v. Mst. Shameema Khatoon 1984 CLC 3440 ref. 

           

Devolution of Rented Property :-  Property in question, devolved upon five sons of deceased owner including respondents. Property in question had been mutated in the name of absentee landlord while ejectment was sought -for his self occupation as well as his brother who was lawfully authorized to act, appear and represent absentee respondent latter being unable to act and appear is person by reason of his ailing health. Courts below had concurrently concluded that respondent acting on behalf of absentee respondent had been dealing with collection of rent, enhancement of rent and negotiating for vacating premises in question with te-nants and was authorized to receive rent. Overall appraisal of evidence would indicate that respondent acting on behalf of owner fell within the purview of expression,. "Landlord" as defined in S. 2of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 and thus, entitled to file application for ejectment of tenants.-P.L.J.2001 SC 209 = 2001 SCMR 577.

           

Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation-) Act  Whether notice u/S. 30 of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was necessary to be served upon occupant of property before filing of ejectment petition. In Muhammad Hussain and other vs. Muhammad Shaft, while considering effect of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, learned single Judge of this court (High Court) held that after repeal' of settlement Laws in 1975, no notice u/S. 30 of Displaced Persons (Compensation& Rehabilitation) Act., 1958 was necessary before filing of ejectment petition. Learned Judge has also held that ejectment petition itself could be construed to be notice to tenant. Petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference by this court in exercise of its Constitutional Jurisdiction.  P.L.J.1998 Lah. 355 = 1998 CLC 618.

 

Duty of tenant‑‑There being mandatory requirement of law that tenant must pay rent due, try manner specified under provisions of S.13 of Ordinance VI of 1959, tenant, held, would discharge his legal obligation accordingly ‑by paying rent regularly to avoid default‑‑In case tenant had taken up plea that landlord was in habit of accepting rent periodically, burden to prove same, would be upon the tenant. 1986 M L D 1587

 

Ejectment Tenants initially admitted the tenancy, but later on took up the plea that for having purchased the share of some co-owners of demised premises, such relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased to exist – Rent Controller and Appellate Court discarded such plea of tenants and passed ejectment order Tenants could not resist ejectment application on such ground – Tenancy would stand terminated either mutually by landlord and tenant or by surrendering the possession of demised premises by tenant, which he had taken at the inception under tenancy relationship – No exception could be taken to the view formed by Courts below – High Court dismissed the appeals for having no force. 2002 MLD 434  Ghulam Mustafa and another v. Mst. Muhammadi Begum and another 1990 CLC 246; Tajamal Hussain v. Syed Ibrar Hussain 1992 ALD 420; Muhammad Nawaz and 2 others v. Sh. Abdul Latif and another 1971 SCMR 198; Dr. Arslan Razzaq v. Ali Hussain PLD 1993 Lah.97; Umar Hayat Khan v. InayatulLah. Butt and others 1994 SCMR 572; Nazir Ahmad v. Mst. Sardar Bibi and others 1989 SCMR 913; Ghulam Mustafa and others v. Mst. Muhammadi Begum and others 1991 SCMR 432 and Dr. Muhammad Siddique v. Additional District Judge, Faisalabad and 3 others 1990 CLC 1156 ref.

 

Contention that Sub-Section  (5-B) of section 13 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 refers to new building without saying same type of building and it has employed word "area" and not words "shop" or "residential premises". In other words, a tenant has option to apply under aforesaid provisions of Ordinance for an area in new building notwithstanding change of nature of building. View taken by S.C.in Judgments Abdul Bari v. Khadim Hussain, Ghulam Nabi v. MuShtag Ahmad and Hadi alias Abdul Hadi Hasan and others v. Syed Ali Haider and others as well as in the preseht review that Sub-Section  (5-B) of Section 13 of Ordinance does not control clause (vi) of Sub-Section  (2) of section 13 thereof and that landlord has right to develop his property and to change nature of construction and that tenant does not have any veto power to prevent it by virtue of Sub-Section  (5-B) of Section 13, seems to be in consonance with law. However conclusion that provision of Sub-Section  (5-B) would come \nto play only if constructed building is of same type and character and suitable for same use as was old building, appears to be contrary to language and spirit of Section 13(2)(vi) and Section 13(5-B) of the Ordinance in view of the use of word "area in new building and not "shop" or "commercial" or "residential" premises.  P.L.J.1998 SC 719 = pld 1998 SC 363 = NLR 1998 Civil 305.

 

Landlord had established plea of personal use while respondent could not make out any case of mala fide. Tenant's plea of alleged intention to increase rent stood demolished by admission made by his witnesses who did not deny that no notice for increase of rent was ever issued. Witnesses of tenant were unaware of personal need of landlord or as to his business abroad. Landlord/landlady had proved bona fide in as much as she was running her garments business in foreign country-migrated to Pakistan purchased property in question and decided to run garments business in which she had experience and that she was not in occupation of any other shop, suitable to her needs, in same urban area and that such facts could not even be contradicted or denied in cross-examination by witnesses of tenant. Relationship of landlord and tenant having been admitted, Rent Controller need not have looked into title deed or to criticise mode of sale. Only requirement in present case was to examine bona fide of landlord in regard to the use and occupation of shop. Statement of landlord in proof of his bona fide need was always consistent with pleading and nothing could be extracted in District Judge holding that appellant committed default in payment of 20% increase in rent which was automatic. Whether appellant was defaulter and whether service of notice with regard to increase in rent was mandatory. Both courts below concurrently found that rent was regularly deposited and no default in that regard committed. Regarding statutory increase, respondent neither pleaded that notice was served upon appellant for payment of rent in terms of statutory increase nor led anyevidence. In absence of any demand, it cannot be construed that appellant had committed wilful default. View taken by Additional District Judge is violative of rule laid by Supreme Court.  P.L.J.1998 Lah. 803 = 1998 CLC 1054.

           

Two Courts below and also High Court on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence on record had concurrently found that the tenant was a defaulter in the payment of rent of ten months and that landlord required the premises for reconstruction – Concurrent Judgment of Courts below based on record and cogent and valid reasons, could not be interfered with – Ejectment of tenant having not been ordered solely on the ground of reconstruction, but also on the ground of non-payment of rent, he would not be entitled to the benefit of S.13(5-B) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for restoration of premises after reconstruction of same. 2001 SCMR 1698

           

Appellant Court while maintaining order of ejectment, with consent of parties continued proceedings and directed commission to assess value of superstructure of property in question (ownership where of, had been claimed by tenants) with direction to submit his report before specified date. Status. Appellants had come to High Court against that order to which they were consenting parties, therefore, they were estopped by their conduct to agitate the matter when finally no adjudication had been made against them. Appellate Court in its discretion had followed equitable principles of law to avoided multiplicity of proceedings at the request of both contesting parties. Appellants, thus, could not approbate and reprobate when matter was still pending before proper forum. If report of Commissioner was not acceptable to them they could file objections against the same. Appeal before Appellate forum being in continuation of rent proceedings and that forum having passed order on principle of equity and there being voluntary compromise between parties, appeal was not competent in circumstances.  P.L.J.1999 Pesh. 62 = 1999 CLC 400.

           

Referring matter by Rent Controller to respectable shopkeepers to decide in accordance with alleged agreement. Rent Controller instead of deciding controversy himself wrongly and illegally referred matter to decide controversial issues to agency which has no concern or authority under Rent Restriction Ordinance, Impugned order suffers from inherent illegality and being without Jurisdiction. Petition accepted and case sent back to controller to decide same strictly in accordance with law.  P.L.J.1998 Lah. 710 = 1998 CLC 1097.

 

Non-construction of building and application for restoration of possession. Majority of heirs of deceased landlord, have not been impleaded. Proceedings initiated by appellant, suffer from laches, same having been filed after more than six years of delivery of possession, and relief of discretionary nature cannot be legitimately allowed specially when majority of heirs were not impleaded. In event of failure to construct new building or restore possession, penal action is provided under Section 13(5) of Ordinance, for which, aggrieved person should have approached criminal court of competent Jurisdiction and Controller had no authority to draw proceedings under said law. Proceedings under Section 13(5) of Ordinance, initiated by appellant before Controller, were without Jurisdiction.  P.L.J.1994 Qta. 5.

 

Ejectment petition—Partition of property between owners/landlords—Tenant’s right to raise objection regarding such partition or the manner in which same was so made—Question of title has no relevancy in proceedings in rent cases, wherein pivotal point requiring determination would be relationship of landlord and tenant—Tenant has absolutely no legal right to raise such objection—Such objection would have no substantial effect on factum of his tenancy and his status would remain as tenant. 2004 S C M R 126

 

Estoppel : Plaintiff/tenant  had undertaken before Magistrate in proceedings under S. 145, Cr.P.C. that he would be bound by decision of Rent Controller. Rent Controller had found plaintiff to be tenant. Prayer for injunction (in presence of such statement) in terms of S, 56(J), Specific Relief Act, 1877 would be hit by principles of estoppel. Trial Court had correctly dismissed plaintiffs suit.  P.L.J.1997 Kar. 1035 = 1997 CLC 1109 = NLR 1997 Civil 647.

           

Eviction order maintained by Appellate forum. Petitioner had denied his status as tenant in his written reply; he had, however, admitted in cross-examination that he was tenant of shop in question. Petitioner had further stated that it was incorrect that he was no{ tenant of applicant (respondent) and was falsely deposing in Court. Two independent witnesses produced by respondent had deposed that petitioner had paid rent to respondent. Petitioner had failed to prove his assertion in his written reply that his brother was owner of shop in question and that he was not tenant of respondent. Evidence of petitioner was too weak, vague, bristled with inherent contradictions and he had even admitted in his cross-examination his status as tenant under respondent. Repsondent having established his status as landlord of property in question. Eviction of petitioner was rightly ordered by two forums below. Mere pendency of civil suit filed by brother of petitioner claiming ownership of shop in question, would not automatically stay proceedings before Rent Controller. Concurrent findings of .two forums below that petitioner was tenant of shop in question, would not warrant interference in Constitutional Jurisdiction.  P.L.J.2000 Pesh. 291.

 

Eviction application against tenant filed by one of several co-owners for his personal need as property having been partitioned among-owners and for re-construction of buiding. Nothing concrete had been brought on record to show that property was actually partitioned among co-owners nor even portions to be owned by co-owners, were shown. Evidence was insufficient to Justify ground of alleged bonafide personal need. Substantial evidence to the effect that building was to be re-constructed was missing. Appellant, however, can file fresh eviction application on concrete ground, which would be decided on its merits.-P.L.J.2000 SC 894 = PLD 2000 SC 787.

           

Ex parte order, setting aside of. Proceedings before Court or Tribunal of quasi-Judicial nature. Even if there was no provision, for setting aside ex parte order, such Court or Tribunal would be empowered to exercise such powers by applying principles .of natural Justice have to be read in statute which do not specifically debar such remedy. Even without applying provisions of C.P.C. in terms, procedure provided under O.IX, R. 9, C.P.C. & ORDER IX, R. 13 C.P.C. and also O.XLI, R. 17, C.P.C. can be applied by Rent Controller or High Court in rent proceedings.-P.L.J.1998 SC 615.

 

Execution of ejectment order – Ejectment order passed against tenant having attained finality. Court in its ejectment order granted two months' time to the tenant with effect from 4-11-1997 for handing over the possession of the premises to the landlord – Application for execution of ejectment order was filed on 5-1-1998 by the landlord before Executing Court in terms of the ejectment order which was challenged by the tenant in Constitutional petition contending that period of two months granted to him was to expire on 5-1-1998 and issuance of writ of possession on that very date by Executing Court was unlawful and illegal – High Court dismissed the Constitutional petition – Validity – Period of two months would mean sixty day and while counting sixty days' period from 4-11-1997, 3-1-1998 would be the last day for the petitioner to return the possession in terms of the ejectment order-Execution application could have been competently moved even on 4-1-1998 – Even otherwise there was no bar under the law to issue writ of possession soon after the expiry of time for handing over of possession to the landlord granted by a competent Court – High Court having dismissed Constitutional petition had given cogent and valid reasons to which no exception could be taken, 2001 SCMR 1789

 

Rent Controller would execute ejectment order as if it were a decree of a Civil Court – Rent Controller while executing an ejectment order as a Civil Court decree, was vested with all powers as were enJoyed by a Civil Court for effectively executing a decree – Procedural provisions contained in Rr.100 & 101 of O.XXI, C.P.C. were a part of procedural law relating to execution of decree and could be invoked in execution of an order passed by a Rent Controller – Suit filed by the tenant which primarily raised the question that the ejectment was being sought from a property not vesting in landlord was completely barred by S.47, C.P.C. read with O. XXI. R-103, C.P.C. – All questions of title and possession were to be decided by the Court executing a decree and suit was barred – Revision petition arising out of a civil suit filed by the tenant to dilate upon the decision given by the Executing Court and upheld by the Court of first appeal was not sustainable. 2001 MLD 1621  Haji Abdul Wali Khan and another v. Muhammad Hanif and another 1991 SCMR 2457 ref.

           

Ex-parte proceeding:- Case transferred to another rent Controller during its pendency. Transferee Court without serving notice on tenants proceeded to decide ejectment application and order their ejectment. First Appellate Court remanded case to Rent Controller for hearing afresh, after serving notice to tenants. High Court maintained order of remand. In ejectment application, provisions of S. 24-A C.P.C. were not applicable and transferee Court i.e. Rent Controller was required to have served notice upon tenants even though case was being proceeded against them ex-parte. As far applicability of C.P.C. only equitable principles thereof, can be invoked, if need arises in cases under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, High Court thus, has rightly maintained that proceedings conducted by transferee Rent Controller against respondent without notice suffered from infirmity as the same were opposed to principles of natural Justice. Interference with Judgment of High Court was not warranted. Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.-P.L.J.2001 SC 226,

           

Rent Controller, after publication of notice in a daily newspaper, passed an order for taking exparte proceedings in the case followed by exparte evidence and order for the eviction of tenant from the property—Possession of the property was delivered to the landlord—Application before Rent Controller under O.IX, R. 13, C.P.C for setting aside the exparte order/decree on the ground that in fact one of the applicants was the tenant who had not been impleaded as a party in the ejectment application—Said application was dismissed by the Rent Controller which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority, however, Constitutional petition against the said order was allowed by the High Court—Contention of the landlord was that the High court was to expected to substitute findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority; that the application under O.IX, R. 13, C.P.C was not competent before the Rent Controller and that High Court ought not to have set aside the exparte decree and that High court ought not to have set aside the exparte decree and the Rent Controller could be asked to decide the application for setting aside the exparte order/decree on its merits after recording evidence of the parties—Validity—High court had taken a prima facie view on the basis of the documents produced by the applicants for the limited purpose of deciding application for setting aside ex-parte order of ejectment— Rent Controller was yet to determine the real controversy between the parties as to the existence or otherwise of the relationship of landlord and tenant and the grounds on which the ejectment application was founded and it was open ot the Rent Controller to Law, however, favored the adjudication of a lis on merits rather than on sheer technicalities—Apart from the provision of O.IX, R. 13, power to recall exparte orders in appropriate case in the interest of justice and for valid reasons—Impugned judgment of the High court did not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant interference by the Supreme Court—Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. PLD 2003 SC 625 

 

Application for setting aside the ex-parte eviction order by the Rent Controller duly confirmed by the Appellate Authority was dismissed by both the said forums—High Court, while deciding a constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution could not go into a question of fact like that of difference of addresses, which was neither raised nor dealt with by the tribunals below— Present case, however, proceeded on extraordinary premises; wherein inquiry into the question of fact was effectively blocked and shrouded in questions of procedural intricacies by the respondent, a senior Advocate of the High Court adept in the matters of procedural law and technical polemics—Question of fact regarding different addresses, in circumstances, required to be settled in an inquiry by the Rent Controller through framing of issues and taking evidence but non-framing of issues and non-holding of inquiry on question of fact raised in petitioner’s application for setting aside ex parte order was admittedly a question of law—Petitioners were, therefore, within their right to either further particularize their pleadings in the application or to substantiate allegations of fraud through presenting evidence thereupon—High Court, exhaustively noting the facts and implications of the whole matter pointed out the questions of facts having bearing upon the questions of law involved in the present case and in order to do complete justice accepted the Constitutional petition holding that High Court was not barred from taking notice of the said questions—Impugned orders of the Rent controller and the Additional District judge were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect—Matter was remitted back to the Rent Controller for re-decision of petitioner’s application for setting aside ex parte ejectment, which shall be deemed to be pending; Rent Controller after obtaining reply of the respondent would frame issues, record evidence of the a  parties and decide the same in accordance with law—Executing court shall also decide pending objection petition of one of the petitioner in accordance with law, if so deemed appropriate upon decision of application for sting aside the ex parte ejectment order and during pendency of the said application, petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the suit property. PLD 2003 Lah. 581 

 

Rent Controller, pending ejectment proceedings, called upon to exercise powers to strike off defence of tenant-Mere fact of Controller having recorded findings on issues framed by him- Does not mean that he had decided case and become functus o ficio– Held, Controller cannot be said to have lost Jurisdiction to strike off defence of tenant and order his eviction.- P L D 1980 Lah. 158 Syed Masood Hussain and others . v. Muhammad Saeed Khan and others P L D 1955 Lah. 11 ref.  Major Feroze Din Klian and others v. Sh. Muhammad Amin P L D 1967 Lah. 966 and Qazi Qahir Khan v. Abdullah Jan P L D 1963 Quetta 21 distinguished.

 

Failure to deposit difference in arrears of rent – Tenants deposited monthly rent according to the order of Rent Controller regularly but failed to deposit the difference in old rent rate and new rent rate – Three years after passing of tentative rent order, the landlord filed application for striking off defence of the tenants and the same was dismissed by Rent Controller – Such order of Rent Controller was set aside by Lower Appellate Court and the defence of the tenants was struck off – Order passed by Lower Appellate Court was upheld by the High Court – Validity – No time limit was fixed for submitting application for striking off defence and the same might be struck off where the tenant failed in depositing the rent – Where the landlords had not filed the application for a period of more than three years, same would not constitute waiver – Judgments passed by the two Courts below were in accordance with law and in consonance to the principles laid down by S.C in the case Muhammad Saleh v. Muhammad Shaft 1982 SCMR 33 – 2001 SCMR 844  Muhammad Saleh v. Muhammad Shaft 1982 SCMR 33 rel.

           

Frequent visits of landlord to a city in other province to attend his ailing wife—Rent Controller passed eviction order against the tenant—Tenant resisted the bona fide personal need of landlord on the ground that the landlord had disposed of his other properties in the city and shifted his residence to another city in a different province—Validity—Held, landlord himself was always the best judge to manage and tackle his own affairs as he deemed fit and proper—In absence of any evidence to the contrary, such fact did not call for taking a view that the landlord had permanently shifted to the other city— Contention of the tenant with regard to bona fide personal need of landlord was ill-founded and mala fide—Visits of landlord to other city to attend his sick wife and frequent visits of the landlord after disposal of other properties alone would not be sufficient to conclude that he did not require the shop in dispute for his business needs and in good faith—Primarily such acts are related to the private and internal affairs of landlord and dealings of such person which from case to case vary and depending on one’s own needs and benefits—Landlord had successfully discharged the onus of bona fide personal need and the Rent Controller on proper appraisal of evidence resolved the issue in favour of the landlord—High Court declined to interfere with the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. PLD 2003 Quetta 27

           

Guidelines in interest of Justice and to advance cause of rent laws for quick decision elucidated by the Supreme Court.

1)Affidavit of not more than two witnesses in support of the ejectment application shall be filed in the Court in addition to the affidavit of the petitioner himself in support of the contents of the ejectment petition.

2) While replying to the ejectment application the respondent shall be similarly required to submit his own affidavit and affidavits of two other witnesses in support of his affidavit on the date fixed in the notice served upon him.

3) The parties shall be bound to produce their witnesses for purposes of their respective cross-examination on the day fixed by the Court.

4) A party obtaining the affidavit of a witnesses in support of his petition/reply would be bound to produce him in the Court for cross-examination and in case of its failure to do so his evidence shall be excluded from consideration.

5) Appeal against the interim orders of the Rent Controller and resort to constitutional Jurisdiction against orders at intermediate stage arising out of the ejectment proceedings should be discouraged.

6) The Court should take serious view of the situation when witnesses for cross-examination in support of their affidavit deliberately avoid/ evade appearance in Court.

7) Adjournment of ejectment petition should not be allowed except under unavoidable circumstances on an application moved by a party supported by affidavit. In such cases also adjournment should not be made for a period exceeding three days. Following the above procedure in ejectment matters appears to be necessary to achieve the goal of expeditious disposal of cases within a period of three months particularly in respect of residential tenement having regard too the decisions unanimously taken in the Chief Justices' Committee Meeting held on 26.2.2000. There is a need for organization and methodical arrangement of supervision and control by the high Courts over the functioning of the subordinate Courts which will be in accord with the decision reached at the Chief Justice's Committee Meeting held on 26.2.2000. The District and Sessions Judges of all the Provinces would be responsible for the integrity and expeditious disposal of the case and working of the subordinate Courts within their respective Jurisdiction.-P.L.J. 2000 SC 1619 = 2000 SCMR 556.

 

Hardship likely to be faced by tenant. Whether have any effect. It is not hardship or inconvenience likely to be faced by tenant in case of his ejectment to be taken into consideration by court but contrary to that it is bona fide requirement of landlord alone, under law, that matters. Hardship and inconven-ience of tenant is immaterial for purposes of decision on ejectment petition filed U/S. 13.  P.L.J.1996 Lah. 1497 = 1996MLD 1163.

If a party denies the relationship of landlord and tenant, the Rent controller had to resolve the question of relationship of landlord and tenant before passing any order under S. 13(6) of the ordinance for deposit of rent—Tenant, in the present case, had admitted in his written statement the payment of rent to a lady, predecessor-in-interest of the landlord, though it was stated that the said payment was made at the asking of the real owner—Rent controller, in circumstances, taking all the aspect of the case into consideration, passed a just order for the deposit of rent in court with the rider that the same would be disbursed to the real owner—Person, at whose asking tenant was paying rent to the predecessor-in-interest of the landlord never entered the present litigation—subsequent order of the Rent Controller recalling his earlier order simply on an oral request of tenant, could not be given any credence in circumstances. PLD 2003 SC 231

           

In Good Faith for his own use :- . Words, "In good faith for his own use" appearing in S. 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Connotation. Words "in good faith for his own use" as used in Section 13 of the Ordinance need liberal interpretation. Not the words of any statute but spirit thereof would make the law meaningful. Ordinance of 1959, being for the interest of both landlord and tenant, Court must carry out real purpose rather than to defeat the same. Even otherwise, construction which promotes improvement in administration of Justice and removal of defects, should be favoured over one, which protects wrong. Words "in good faith for his own use" should be interpreted to include requirements of "grand children" also. High Court thus, took rational view in ordering ejectment of tenant for use of premises for grand children of landlady.- P.L.J.2001 SC 119 = 2001 SCMR 550.

 

Whether petitioners (land-ladies) could seek eviction of tenant  for their husbands. Eviction can be allowed.  P.L.J.1997 Lah. 1765 = 1997 MLD 1800 = 1997 Law Notes 199.

 

Where landlord reasonably and in good faith required premises for re-construction and for that purpose he had obtained approval of building plan from local authorities concerned, such requirement could neither be termed as unreasonable nor arbitrary and unfair. Landlord has the prerogative to use his property according to his own choice and discretion rather than to be dictated by the terms convenient to tenant. Evidence on record indictated that requirement of respondents (landlord) for reconstruction of building for their own occupation was genuine, reasonable, in good faith and wholly warranted by the circumstances. Fact that respondent, have sought ejectment from non-residential premises for re­construction of residential house was not fatal as building plan. had been duly approved by the concerned Authority. Order of Rent Controller as affirm by the High Court directing ejectment of tenants was maintained in circumstances.  P.L.J.2001 SC 209 =  2001 SCMR 577.

 

Increase of Rent :– Application that appellant did not deposit rent due, hence, his defence be struck off. According to Section 5-A of Ordinance, 1959, rent of a non-residential building shall stand automatically increased at the end of every three years by 25% of rent already being paid by tenant. Arrears having become due as a result of said increase, unless paid earlier, be deemed to be rent due which would be an added ground for seeking eviction. As per Section 13(6) of Ordinance, 1959, apart from direction in regard to arrears of rent, tenant is also to be directed to deposit regularly future monthly rent till final decision of case, before 15th day of each succeeding month. Non compliance of said order of Rent Controller shall be visited with penalty of stricking off defence of tenant. As a matter of fact there being no order as such, it would be quite harsh and even illogical to strike off defence of appellant. Moreover, increase in rent as envisaged by Section 5-A is not found to be actionable u/S. 13(6) of ordinance, 1959.  P.L.J.1998 Lah. 458 = PLD 1998 Lah. 196 = NLR 1998 Civil 146.

 

Interference by Supreme Court :-  Finding in first appeal regarding bona fides of requirement upheld by High Court in second appeal. No interference by Supreme Court.  P.L.J.1984 Lah. 257. + P.L.J.1981 SC 347. Concurrent findings of fact by lower Courts based on oral and documentary evidence. Not to be interfered in Second Appeal.-P.L.J.1981 Kar. 372.

           

Interlocutory orders. Close of evidence in ejectment application. Tenant's two applications for adducing additional evidence were dismissed by Rent Controller. Orders challenged in Constitutional petition. No appeal having been provided against interlocutory orders, even than in rent matters such orders could not be assailed in Constitutional Jurisdiction of-High Court.  P.L.J.1998 Lah. 396.

           

Joint application under Ss. 13(5) & 13(5-A) of Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 :-  Tenant handed over the possession of the premises to the landlord did not construct the premises as it was stated in the ejectment proceedings construct the premises as it was stated in the ejectment proceedings initiated earlier—Tenant filed application under Ss. 13(5) & 13 (5-A) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinances, 1959, against the landlord before Rent Controller, for restoration of possession of the premises and conviction of the landlord—Rent Controller dismissed the application—Validity—Rent controller had no jurisdiction to punish the landlord under S. 13(5) of  West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, as the provisions of S. 13(5-A) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, could come into play after the landlord was convicted—joint application under both the Ss. 13(5) & 13(5-A) before Rent Controller was not competent—order of Rent Controller which touched the merits fo the case was liable to be set aside as the same had been passed without jurisdiction—Application filed by the tenant before Rent Controller was also liable to be dismissed as the same was incompetent—High Court set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller and the application filed by the tenant was dismissed—Appeal was disposed of accordingly. PLD 2003 Quetta 6

 

Joint property – Person entering upon such property as tenant under one of its Co-Sharers continues to be a tenant till such time either tenancy is terminated by an express agreement between the landlord and tenant or he surrenders possession thereof – Tenant purchasing share from one Co-Sharer during subsistence of tenancy does not cease to be a tenant, particularly, where the ejectment proceedings were already initiated against a tenant but who, with an object to circumvent such proceedings, acquired a share in property from a co-owner. 2002 MLD 434

           

Landlord and tenant, relationship of‑‑‑Tenant while denying such relationship produced no evidence that such relation had ceased to exist‑‑‑Tenant having once been inducted into premises by landlord could not subsequently deny his title; only exception to such concept of estoppel was when there was notice of eviction by any third person who happened to be the real owner‑‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant in that eventuality would come to an end‑‑‑Threat/notice of eviction from real owner would constitute symbolic eviction of tenant by real owner which would bring to an end relationship of landlord and tenant which was protected by Art. 115, Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984‑‑‑Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant on wholly contumacious and frivolous grounds would culminate into resumption of tenancy on the principle of forfeiture of tenancy‑‑‑Tenant's eviction from premises on such account was thus, justified and warranted. 1995 M L D 1371

           

Landlord setting up agreement of sale :- Agreement of sale did not confer any title unless the same had been determined in favour of tenant by competent Court of Jurisdiction. Rent Controller, thus, fell in error in holding that relations of landlord and tenant between parties could be determined after final decision of suit pending before Civil Court. Tenant during pendency of suit for specific performance of agreement where landlord was not even a party, could (not be allowed by challenging title of landlord and retain possession of premises in question. Landlord was, therefore, entitled to seek eviction, of tenant. Tenant was directed to vacate premises within specified period.  P.L.J.1999 Qta. 27 = 1999 MLD 2117.

 

Non-complianace of Rent Controllers order directing tenant to deposit future rent in Court. Order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller against tenant. Validity. Objection about assumption of Jurisdiction by Rent Controller having been raised by tenant and issue relating thereto having been framed, it was duty and obligation of Rent Controller to decide point of Jurisdiction as preliminary Jurisdiction before passing order for tentative rent under S. 13(6) West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties to proceedings is condition precedent for enforcement of rule envisaged under S. 13(6), West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. Rent Controllers order directing tenant to depoint rent in Court without deciding question of Jurisdiction against tenant, was thus, without lawful authority, therefore, order of eviction against tenant (appellant) being without lawful authority, order for deposit of rent was liable to be quashed. Case was remanded to Rent Controller with direction that he should decide question of Jurisdiction as preliminary issue and determine character of property in 'question and proceed with eviction proceedings on merits only if objection to Jurisdiction was decided in negative.- P.L.J.2000 Lah. 860.

           

Non-compliance of order of Rent Controller by the tenant—Rented property belonged to the father of the landlord on whose death the same fell to share of landlord through a partition—Tenant, admittedly failed to comply with the order for deposit of rent passed by the Rent Controller—Tenant, thus, became a wilful defaulter—Order striking off the defence of the tenant was rightly passed by the Rent Controller and maintained by both the Appellate courts—Supreme Court declined interference in circumstances. PLD 2003 SC 228 Deposit of rent in Bank by tenant in the name of Rent Controller/Civil Judge—Validity—Rent had not been deposited in favour of landlord as deposit of rent in the name of Civil judge would not serve the object of law—Tenant had failed to deposit rent in favour of landlords for 12 months, thus, he had committed intentional and contumacious default in payment of rent. PLD 2003 SC 477

           

Non-deposit of tentative rent as per order of Rent Controller. Rent Controller refused to strike off defence of appellants. First Appellate Court and High Court strike off petitioner's defence and ordered their eviction. Validity. Appellant's admittedly did not comply with the order of Rent Controller for depositing difference of rent. No convincing explanation or reasonable excuse in not depositing the rent was placed before the Court, There being no time limit fixed for submitting application for striking off defence, defence of tenants (appellants) can be struck off for non-deposit of rent. Delay in filing application for striking off defence of tenant does not amount to waiver. Judgments passed by Appellate Court and the High Court being in accordance with law and in consonance to principle laid down by S.C. in Muhammad Saleh's case (1982 SCMR 33), no interference with impugned Judgment was warranted.  Striking off defence of petitioners (tenant) for non-compliance of order of Court relating to deposit of tentative rent. Effect. Leave to appeal was granted to consider that respondent (landlord) having failed to file any application for striking off defence of petitioners on account of alleged default in the payment of difference in arrears of rent for more than three years; Rent Controller rightly refused to strike off defence of petitioners as such inaction on the part of landlord amounted to waiver of default.-P.L.J.2001 SC 650 = 2001 SCMR 844.

 

Objection petition – Ejectment was finally decided in favour of landlord by Supreme Court – Objection petition was filed by the respondent during pendency of execution proceedings with the assertion that the property was owned and possessed by him – Objection raised by the respondent was that since he was not party to the ejectment proceedings, therefore, order of ejectment could not be executed against him – Both the Courts below concurrently dismissed the objection petition – High Court in exercise of Constitutional Jurisdiction allowed the petition and decided the same in favour of the respondent-Validity – Conduct of the respondent showed that despite the fact that all along he knew about the ejectment proceeding against the tenants but did not file any application for becoming party in those proceedings – Such act of the respondent would show that he had no concern or interest in those' proceedings – Belated/afterthought objection was mala fide and designed with ulterior motive to prolong the trifling litigation 'so as to deprive the landlord from the fruits of the ejectment order and to prolong his agony-Where the objection petition was filed at the behest and behalf of the tenants as the same served their purpose to prolong the occupation of the tenants in the premises in dispute – Order of High Court passed in exercise of Constitutional Jurisdiction in favour of the objection petitioner was set aside and that of both the Courts below was restored by Supreme Court. 2001 SCMR 683 

 

Objection regarding Jurisdiction of Rent Controller. Whether Rent Controller etui pass an order U/S. 13(6) for deposit of rent without deciding question of Jurisdiction first. Appellant did raise a specific preliminary objection, wherein, Jurisdiction of learned Rent Controller to entertain and decide ejectment petition was challenged, on ground, that premises in issue was rented out as factory and was outside purview of Rent Ordinance. Learned Rent Controller neither framed any issue nor decided objection, before passing an order u/S. 13(6) of Ordinance. Order for deposit of rent, could be passed, in proceedings u/S. 13 of Ordinance, provided, Rent Controller in first determined existence of Jurisdiction, by returning findings, as to objection riased to Jurisdiction against appellant. Amazingly, learned Rent Controller, framed issue of Jurisdiction, after assuming Jurisdiction, which was untenable. Order being without lawful authority and patently illegal, could not entail penal consequences, by way of striking off defence of appellant, in case of any violation thereof. This aspect of matter, was not attended to, by learned Rent -Controller as also by learned Additional District Judge, in true legal perspective. Appeal allowed and case remanded.  P.L.J.1998 Lah. 1425 = 1998CLC1883.

 

On transfer of an evacuee property, tenant or its occupant becomes tenant of transferee. Petitioner was occupant of rented premises at the time of partition. Said premises was transferred to respondent in 1966. Petitioner did not pay rent to respondent after receiving notice under Section 30 of Act, 1958. S.C.adjudged respondents as valid transferees on 23-10-1988 and they again issued notice to petitioner under Section 13-A of Ordinance, 1959. but still he did not pay a penny of rent to respondents. All these circumstances were not controverted by petition in his written statement or any where else. Two forums below had correctly applied equitable rule of forfeiture of tenancy and there was no necessity to hold further proceedings to determine as to whether petitioner was a wilful defaulter or not.  P.L.J.1998 Lah. 322 = 1998 MLD 567.

           

Order by Rent Controller –  Nature –  Order passed by Rent Controller and upheld in appeal as well as in second appeal was final which could not be questioned, 2001 MLD 1621

 

Order of ejectment of tenant. Landlord had sought eviction of tenant mainly on ground of re-construction and be had placed his claim upon submission of site plant. Tenant's claim that site-plan having been submitted by an un-authorized person was of no consequence. Landlord had got site-plan sanctioned from concerned authorities. Mere fact that site-plan was not submitted either by original landlord or by some other authorized person does not give any cause of action to tenant to challenge that aspect of the matter. Points raised in writ petition were raised before Appellate Court which were adverted to by that Court, High Court while exercising Constitutional Jurisdiction was not supposed to re-appraise evidence which has already been appraised by Courts, below.  P.L.J.2000 Lah. 2136.

             

Pendency of suit :- Civil suit filed by petitioner in respect of disputed property was pending decision and during pendency whereof ejectment petition merited dismissal with a direction to respondent to have first his title cleared. Contention of. Mere pendency of suit filed by petitioner against respondent, relatable to property in dispute, would be of no significance unless it raised serious doubt about respondents title to property in question.-P.L.J.1995 S.C. 444 = 1995 SCMR 1380 = 1995 PSC 719.

 

Ejectment petition filed by respondent accepted by Rent Controller and appeal preferred by petitioner and application under Order 47, Rule 27 read with section dismissed by Appellate Court. Constitutonal petition challenging orders of Appellate Court. Respondent No. 3 claims himself to be allottee of house No. 64 and he has annexed its site-plan with his ejectment petition and has tried to prove his stand by adducing evidence. On other hand, petitioner has tried to rebut stand of Respondent No. 3 by examining RWs. It is evident from cross-examination of RW 2 that contents of site-plant stand admitted by him. Thus admission of RW2 coupled with evidence adduced by Respondent No. 3 proves that it is house No. 64 which is in possession of petitioner. It is also pertient to point out that petitioner, claims that he is not in possession of house No. 64 allotted to respondent No. 3, but has failed to put up site-plan of his house during last 13 years. His contention is that' he is in possession of house No, 63 and not house No. 64. Even if his contention is accepted, then has to bring on record, site-plan of house No. 63, which he has failed to do so. This fact further proves that he is in occupation of house No.: 64 allotted to Respondent No. 3 and not any other house. Thus Courts below have rightly passed orders regarding ejectment of petitioner. So far as question of disallowing additional evidence is concerned, same has rightly been disallowed, as very genuiness and authenticity of NCH Form is not free from doubt. Petition is devoid of any force and is accordingly dismissed.-P.L.J.1999 Lah. 719.

           

Personal bona fide need. For seeking eviction, on ground of personal use, one has to plead personal requirement, record statement, in support thereof and to prove circumstances showing bonafide needs. In terms of provisions of S. 13 of Ordinance, a landlord is entitled to eviction of tenant, if he is able to establish that rented premises is required in good faith and bonafide manner for his personal use.  P.L.J.1998 Lah. 944 = 1998 CLC 1249.

           

Respondent has neither deposed anything as to business nor as to preparation made by him in this behalf. He admitted that he is making fresh construction but has not yet decided as to what would be its use. Besides this he also admitted that he is in possession of a garage. There is ample evidence on recond that application was mala fide. Ejectment petition of respondent is dismissed.P.L.J.1997Lah. 55 = 1997MLD 560. Admittedly, respondent No. 2 who was employed in Pakistan international Airlines had retired from service and wanted to set up business of his own in disputed shop and required same in good faith for .said purpose. No exception could be taken to his right nor can any fault be found therewith.  P.L.J.1997 Lah. 1367 = 1998 CLC 106.

           

Eviction of tenant from the shop in question sought on the ground of personal requirement of landlady–There was no bar on landlady for filing eviction application on the ground that premises in dispute was required for the use and occupation of her husband as he was doing business in rented premises. Statement of attorney of respondent and statement of her husband for whom premises was required was in consonance with averments made in eviction application–No misreading or mis-appreciation was pointed in evidence on record–Interference in eviction order of Rent Controller was thus, not warranted.  P.L.J. 2002 Quetta 21 1983 SCMR 715 & 1983 CLC 1139 ref.

           

Witnesses produced by appellants proved beyond doubt, about their personal needs and stated that S & S, appellants, run to business and they do not have any other business. One of them is working on daily basis while other is sitting Jobless. Appellants proved their' bpna fide needs independently and nothing was brought on record to establish any mala fide against them. Assessing facts as they are, it could not be argued that filing of eviction petition against B was mala fide device to nonSuit respondent. As matter of fact, appellants could have pleaded that arrangement between respondent and late B,- tenant could not effect their rights nor could create any rights in tenancy, but with view to avoid contest on these questions, respondent was accepted as tenant and consequently, eviction proceedings continued against' him to ascertain plea of default and personal needs of appellants had proved their bona fide needs without any shadow of doubt. Findings recorded by courts below suffer from misreading, non-reading of evidence and non-consideration of rule laid down by superior courts.  P.L.J.1998 Lah. 721 = 1998 MLD 911.

           

Whether a tenant can be ejected to provide facilities to an other tenant. A land lord can apply to Rent Controller for ejectment of tenant if he requires in good faith a non-residential building for his own use or for use of any of his male children who is not occupying any other such building suitable for his needs in same urban area and who has not vacated such building without sufficient cause after commencement of ordinance. It is clear that all three conditions contained in (ii)and must exist before land -lord becomes entitled to ejectment of tenant. Law does not allow ejectment of tenant on ground of personal need for convenience of some other tenant. A tenant cannot be ejected to provide facilities to another tenant under cover of .personal need.. This ground of ejectment is restricted to personal need of land lord or any of his male children.-P.L.J.1998 Lah. 1203 = 1998 CLC 1161 = NLR 1998 Civil 460.

           

Rent controller has to satisfy himself at the time of final decision of petition that Landlord has produced sanctioned site plan for purpose of reconstructing building. Respondent has proved his case pertaining to bona fide need of disputed shop for reconstruction purposes. He has brought sanctioned building plan on record before ejectment petition finally decided. Petition was not premature, it was not based on mala fide and was filed in good faith for purpose of re­construction of building. Provisions of Section 13(2)(vi) and 13(5B) are not destructing each other as both are attracted at different stages. Rights of appellant are fully protected by statutory safe guards and respondent is bound to involve position of newly constructed building to appellant. Appeal disposed of in the terms of statement of respondent that he shall hand over shop to appellant after construction.-P.L.J.1998 Lah. 1528 = 1999 MLD 2411

 

Finding of Rent Controller on question of personal 'requirement to be reversed.  P.L.J.1984 Lah. 23. Ejectment application filed by landlord on ground of his personal bona fide need was resisted by tenant contending that same was barred under S. 14 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 as earlier ejectment application filed by landlord against other tenant on same ground of personal bona fide need had already been dismissed. In earlier ejectment petition not only parties were different, but more than twenty years had passed since dismissal of that application and filing of present one everything thus did not remain static and there had been changes during that long period of twenty years. If in earlier ejectment application it was found that premises was not bona fidely required, it could not be rationally stated that it should also be held that premises in dispute was not needed by landlord. Appellate Court below, in circumstances, had acted against law in holding that present ejectment application was barred under S. 14 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.  P.L.J.1997 Lah. 1596 = 1997 CLC 757.

 

High Court in appeal reversed order of Rent Controller on grounds that landlord before Rent Controller failed to disclosed nature and type of business, he wanted to established or start in premises; that landlord had admitted in his evidence before Rent Controller that he had no experience of business he intended to start in shop and that Rent Controller was not Justified in refusing to summon record from concerned authorities on application of tenant which was moved before Rent Controller. None of grounds mentioned by High Court Justified interference with order of Rent Controller.  P.L.J.1997 SC 2037 = 1997 SCMR 1062.

 

In application for eviction landlady had not specially pleaded, that shop was also required for use other son, but that omission by itself is not fatal and could not be made a ground for non Suiting appellant as in law need of a son is considered to be an extension of need of landlady herself. Even if the need of son was not specifically pleaded, while deciding question of personal use, requirement of son, if otherwise established, could be considered.-P.L.J.1997 Lah. 251 == 1996 CLC 646.

 

It is evident from statement of landlady that she has categorically admitted that during pendency of previous ejectment proceedings a shop was got vacated and was rented out at enhanced rate of rent. Plea for personal bonafide need of shop is not proved.  P.L.J.2000 Lah. 1647 = 2000 CLC 1873.

 

Landlord has to satisfy court that he requires non-residential building for his own use or use of any of his male children; that he is not occupying any other building in such urban area; and that he has not vacated such a building or rented land without sufficient cause. Landlord is not required to state nature of business intended to be started either in ejectment petition or in evidence. Evidence on record shows that respondent's son has passed Matriculation Examination and was Jobless. He wanted to start his own business in disputed shop. Landlord's bonafide requirement of shop for use of his son is fully established. Finding of lower appellate court regarding bonafide requirement of shop by landlord for use of his son, does not suffer from, any misreading or non-reading of evidence.  P.L.J.1994 Lah. 38 = 1994 CLC 959.

 

Landlord's plea for ejectment of tenant was accepted by Rent Controller on ground of personal requirement of premises. Finding of Rent Controller was affirmed by High Court. Status. Assertion of landlord on oath as to requirement of premises for his personal use has to be accepted as bona fide, if consistent with his averments in eviction application and not shaken in cross-examination or disproved in rebuttal. . Tenant had, thus, not been able to make out case for grant of leave to appeal."- P.L.J.1998 SC 638.

 

Law having recognised right of landlord to obtain possession of demised premises from tenant independently on ground of same being required for use. of his children death of landlord not necessarily to result in abatement of ejectment proceedings viz-a-viz that ground. Clause of agreement regarding rent being payable in advance not  to be pressed into service.  P.L.J.1984 Lah. 255.

 

Ordinance did not appear to be violative of relevant Articles of Constitution guaranteeing Fundamental Rights. Record indicated that rent deed in favour of third person was executed by landlord on specified date which would show that even before completion of reconstruction landlord had decided not to deliver possession of shop to tenants in terms of compromise and under orders of High Court. Landlord had undertaken to restore possession of shop to tenants after reconstruction, therefore, he could not be allowed to resile from terms of compromise on basis whereof he had obtained possession of permission in question, from tenants. Orders passed by High Court being Just and fair.  P.L.J.1997 SC 1199 = 1997 SCMR 476.

 

Whether a minor of 6 years could maintain ejectment application on ground of his personal requirement. A perusal of provisions of Section 13(3)(ii) of Ordinance indicates that in case of a non-residential building or a scheduled or rented land, a landlord can seek ejectment if he requires it in good faith for his own use or for use of any of his children subject to certain conditions. A minor can be a landlord within definition of landlord given in Section 2of Ordinance and it will be unreasonable to hold that a minor landlord cannot apply for ejectment under Section 13(3)(ii) of Ordinance.-P.L.J.1995 SC 451 = 1995 SCMR 1811.

 

Whether landlord under obligation to disclose nature of business and financial sources. In cases seeking ejectment on ground of personal use, landlord has to make statement on oath, consistent with averments made in petition which has to be given due importance for deciding question of bona fide and good-faith. If statement made on oath, is consistent and credibility of case, lean in favour of upholding plea, then matter has to be examined in light of protection, provided Section 13(4) of Ordinance which extends salutory check to protect tenant against any malafide eviction. It is no requirement under ordinance to disclose, financial resources or nature of business for seeking eviction on plea of personal use to run business in rented shop.  P.L.J.1998 Lah. 721 = 1998 MLD 911.

           

Procedure :– Principles of C.P.C. to the extent they have not been specifically excluded and tend to advance cause of Justice would be applicable to ejectment applications/ proceedings. Where petitioners had filed application under O.XLI, R. 19, C.F.C. for recalling Judgment passed ex parte, stating that petitioner's Advocate had appeared in Court when Judgment in question was being dictated but had not been signed as yet and that delay in reaching Court was due to reasons not within his power or control and such assertion stressed in affidavit had not been controverted by counter-affidavit, same would constitute sufficient cause for setting aside ex parte Judgment of High Court. Case remanded to High Court for decision on merits.-P.L.J.1998 SC 615.

 

Evidence should be recorded on all issues, If after evidence on preliminary issue. Rent Controller comes to conclusion that he has Jurisdiction, same witnesses will have to give evidence once more. Not only Justice would be delayed but would result in prolonging agony of parties and enormous wastage of public time.  P.L.J.1988 Lah. 81

 

Re-appraisal of evidence. Ordinarily High Court would not undertake to reappraise evidence in rent matters to disturb finding of fact, but it would certainly interfere if such findings are found to be based on non-reading or misreading of evidence, erroneous assumption of facts, misapplication of law, excess or abuse of Jurisdiction and arbitrary exercise of powers.  P.L.J.2000 SC 1886.

           

Reconstruction of building. A landlord can seek eviction of his tenant for reconstruction in good faith after obtaining necessary sanction from Municipality where building is situated. Necessary permission has been obtained and a site plan for proposed building is also furnished. Three other tenants who vacated premises after order of Rent Controller, reoccupied shops in new building which has partially been erected on site, and only portion in possession of appellant remains to be reconstructed. This fact further tells bond fides of landlord. There is no substance in second appeal.  P.L.J.1994 Pesh. 3 = PLD 1994 Pesh. 55.

 

Alleged agreement of tenancy which was very basis of entire edifice was not established by statements of its scribe, and marginal witness, whose testimony, in respect of said document and payment of any rent was scanty to be given any credence. Solitary, shaky and ambiguous statement of petitioner (alleged landlord) was insufficient to prove validity of agreement of tenancy and existence of relationship of landlord and tenant; Relationship of landlord and tenant was not proved.-P.L.J.1997 Lah. 1513 = 1997 CLC 1538.

 

Application under O.I, R, 10, C.P.C. seeking to be impleaded as co-owners of landlord, refuting exclusive ownership of landlord with regard thereto and disclosing pendency of civil suit in that regard. Question of co-ownership or title of property was beyond domain of Rent Controller and extraneous to proceedings under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, having no nexus therewith. Relationship of landlord and tenant which was "sine qua non" for eviction proceedings stood admitted and there was no cavil to that effect. Rent deed conclusively affirmed the same. Application in terms of O.I, R. 10, C.P.C. was, thus, not warranted and was turned down in circumstances.-P.L.J.1997 Lah. 1517 = 1997 CLC 1543.

 

Contention that by executing agreement of sale, which had not been proved, and which had been withheld in evidence in spite of several adjournments granted to tenant, finding given by Rent Controller regarding existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and admission of tenant that he did not pay rent from date of execution of alleged agreement, whether order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller was not open to interference by High Court. Leave is granted. Tenant had failed to establish on record that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between parties to ejectment proceedings. Rent Controller had given several chances to tenant to produce his evidence in support of his contention but in spite of repeated adjournments he failed to produce his evidence resulting to closing of his side and directing his ejectment. Fact that landlords were handed over possession of premises through execution of order of Rent Controller and tenant's suit for specific performance of alleged agreement to sell having been dismissed by Trial Court and appeal there against having been returned to tenant on account of non-payment of court-fee and non-prosecution, would not Justify remand of case by High Court to Rent Controller for fresh decision. Order of High Court remanding case to Rent Controller was set aside and order of ejectment of tenant was restored.-P.L.J.1997 SC 433 = PLD 1997 SC 73.

 

Landlord undisputedly has a right to enjoy his own property by making improvement or changes if otherwise entitled to seek its possession from tenant. There cannot be any clog to the rights of landlord for reconstructing old building for his bonafide requirement. Therefore, objection that grounds for reconstruction of existing building and its bonafide personal use are inconsistent or mutual distructive to each other, is completely without substance.-P.L.J.1997 SC 1743 = 1997 SWR 1819. Looking from any angle principle and interpretation of S. 13, eviction of a tenant on both grounds of personal requirement and reconstruction in same proceedings, not illegal.  P.L.J. 1988 SC 10

           

In case where-relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, Rent Controller is bound under the law to treat such objection as preliminary and is to tentatively determine this question in the light of material brought by parties or such material which parties mighty produce. This exercise has to be done by the Rent Controller before passing order under Section 13(6) of the Ordinance.-P.L.J.1997 Lah. 1773 = 1997 Law Notes 166

           

Relationship of landlord and tenant would imply acceptance of title of landlord as such and whenever tenant had denied his title and it was established that he was tenant, he would forfeit his tenancy having become trespasser and was to be ejected forthwith. Where tenant was raising objection about title of landlord, he was liable to be ejected straightaway without recording of any further evidence in the case. Case was remanded to Appellate Court for giving effect to findings of High Court whereby on denial of title of landlord and such title having been proved, tenant would entail ejectment forthwith without recording of evidence.-P.L.J.1999 Lah. 982.

 

Rent Controller dismissed such application on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant was not established‑‑‑Appellate Court setting aside order of Rent Controller ordered ejectment of tenant. by holding that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties‑‑‑High Court affirmed decision of Appellate Court in ordering ejectment of tenant, Landlord in his evidence had established factum of purchase of premises from its previous owner, and by furnishing rent receipts proved that tenant had been regularly paying rent in accordance with rent deed which he had executed at the time of entering, the premises as tenant‑‑‑Tenant's claim that he had purchased proportional share from joint Khata in which property in question was situate was rightly found by Appellate Court to be unfounded as it had no connection with the property in question, which was in possession of tenant long before acquisition of such right and title in joint Khata‑‑‑High Court having correctly affirmed judgment of Appellate Court, that tenant was debarred from challenging title of his .landlord, no case was made out to interfere with such finding. 1996 S C M R 1603 Mst. Aiyasha Bai v. Mst. Mamoon Bai PLD 1973 Kar. 419; Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain PLD 1975 SC 457 and Province of Punjab through Education Secretary and another v. Mufti Abdul Ghani PLD 1985 SC 1 ref.

 

Whether tenant is Justified to claim some area in the new constructed building of same type and character and suitable for same use as was old building. Before commencement of construction of proposed building provisions of Sub-Section  (5-B) of Ordinance would come into play if re­constructed building was of same type and character and suitable for same use as was old building not warranted by law, as it pre-empted causes of action of tenants which .had by then not accused to them. Question, whether a tenant is entitled to invoke Sub-Section  (5-B) of Ordinance, cannot be decided on the basis of approved plan, which a landlord may produce at the time of seeking ejectment order but it is to he determined on the basis of building which is actually constructed A landlord may construct a building other than of which he got plan approved. In other words, he may deviate from approved plan. In such cases tenants will have right to apply in terms of Sub-Section . (5-B) of Section 13 of Ordinance to Rent Controller before the completion of building and before its occupation by another person in terms of Sub-Section  (5-A) and Rent Controller concerned shall decide application according to law.  P.L.J.1998 SC 710 – PLD 1998 SC 363 = NLR 1998 Civil 305.

           

Whether tenant was entitled to redeliver of possession after reconstruction. Ejectment order was not on sole ground of reconstruction, but on ground of default in payment of rent as well. Petitioner was not entitled to redeliver of possession because, leaving aside question of reconstruction, he was otherwise liable to eviction on ground of default.  P.L.J.1994 Pesh. 67 – PLD 1994 Pesh. 184.

 

Rent due. Word "Rent Due" in Section 13(6) of Ordinance, 1959, ordinarily-means, the rent which is factually due but in legal parlance it is understood to mean the rent which is legally due. Rent due would also mean the rent for period of 3 years preceding commencement of any action by land lord against tenant, be it an ejectment application or a suit for recovery of rent.  P.L.J.1998 Lah. 458 = PLD 1998 Lah. 196 = NLR 1998 Civil 146.

 

Restoration of possession :- Order of remand automatically followed by order of restitution of possession and duty cast upon Court put parties back to original position. Jurisdiction not objected to. Writ petition merits dismissal as order to restore possession not passed without lawful authority and was passed under Section 151, Civil P.C. (1908)  P.L.J.1981 Kar. 153.

 

Striking off defence for non-compliance of order to deposit of rent. Rent Controller had acted in accordance 'with provisions of Section 13(6) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. Order of Rent Controller being in accordance with law could not be set aside in exercise of appellate Jurisdiction of High Court. No interference was, thus, warranted in the order passed by Rent Controller whereby he had struck of defence of tenant for non-compliance of Rent Controller order of deposit of rent.  P.L.J.2000 Pesh. 108.

 

Tenant, failure to deposit rent on specified date in terms of time stipulated in Rent Controllers* order. Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant. Effect. Tenant had failed to deposit rent of specific month before specified date in terms of time stipulated in the order under mistaken belief that date so stipulated was holiday. Tenant in one of grounds of appeal had himself taken up plea that Courts were closed on that day while his counsel conceded before Rent Controller that Courts were not closed on that day. Default was thus, apparent on record and appeal of tenant was rightly dismissed in terms of S. 15(5) of West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance against ejectment order passed by Rent Controller under S. 13(6) of the Ordinance whereby tenants defence had. Been struck off and his ejectment was ordered. Apart from default, tenant's conduct in denying relationship of landlord and tenant, being contumacious, Rent Controller, could straightaway order ejectment when relationship of landlord and tenant stood established.-P.L.J.2000 Lah. 252.

 

Rent Controller fixed tantative monthly, rent and also ordered to deposit arrears. Rent Controller while fixing tentative monthly rent whether can order to deposit arrears as well. There was no material available before Rent Controller on basis of which he directed petitioner/tenant to deposit arrears of rent for period from July, 1995. He seems to have passed such an order merely because of assertion of landlord/respondent without considering pleas of petitioner. Order is arbitrary on face of it because no reason have been given by Rent Controller for demanding from petitioner payment of arrears of Rent from July 1995,' especially when record shows that petitioner has been regularly paying rent at rate ofRs. 600/- per month in Court with permission of Court, Similarly order of Rent Controller of fixing tentative monthly rent to be paid Rs. 900/- is also fanciful. It is not understandable as to how Rent Controller determine!! monthly rent to be Rs. 900/. -Before passing order for deposit of monthly rent it is incumbent -upon Rent Controller to resolve controversy, if any, between parties as to from which month rent of premises is due. Rent Controller never tried to resolve this controversy between parties. High Court also of view that since petitioner was and is depositing monthly rent at rate of Rs. 600/- per month in Court with permission of Court even from prior to institution of ejectment petition, Rent Controller need not have gone into controversy of passing an order for payment of arrears of rent and Rent Controller could have easily framed necessary issue in regard to rent of premises and such a controversy could have been easily resolved through evidence at time of decision of ejectment petition along with other issue and if at end, it was concluded that rate of rent was higher than one being agitated by petitioner tenant order for recovery of arrears of difference could have been passed by Rent Controller at time of passing final order.  P.L.J.2000 Lah. 977.

 

Many adjournments were sought by the tenant to produce his evidence but neither he produced any evidence nor appeared himself before the Rent Controller nor offered any excuse for such failure — After affording many opportunities, Rent Controller struck off the defence of the tenant—Contention of the tenant was that fair and reasonable opportunity was to afforded to him for production of evidence—Many opportunities given for the purpose of producing his evidence to the tenant within a period of less than thirty days in ordinary course amounted to providing fair and reasonable opportunity for production of evidence—Contention of the tenant was found devoid of any force in circumstances.  PLD 2003 Quetta 27

           

Tenant of property becoming co‑owner :- Tenant acquiring status of co-­owner would cease to be tenant as he himself would be covered by the definition of landlord‑‑‑Principle of estoppel would not be attracted when tenant had acquired status of co‑owner ‑‑‑Tenant after obtaining status of co-­sharer was entitled to retain possession till partition of the property‑‑‑Rent Controller would have no jurisdiction in such matter and remedy of ex­-landlord would be initiation of partition proceedings in case of agricultural land and institution of partition suit in case of urban immovable property. 1996 C L C 137 Khizar Hayat, Khan, Tiwana v. Zainab Begum PLD 1967 SC 402 and Abdul Hameed Naz and others v. Razia Begum Awan and others 1991 SCMR 1376 rel. Muhammad Zafar 1qbal v. Mst. Parveen Akhtar NLR 1992 Civil 522; Qasim v. IVth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (East), Kar. 1993 MLD 1846; Noor Muhammad v. Manager of his Highness, The Mir of Khairpur 1992 SCMR 1931 and Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Afzal PLD 1981 SC 246 ref.

           

Tentative order of rent deposit. Non compliance. Defence of tenant struck off by Rent controller. Appeal against dismissed. Contention that petitioner/tenant was ill at the time when tentative rent order was passed to deposit, and remained in private clinic. Provisions contained in section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance are attracted. – Contention would not absolve him of his liability to pay rent fixed by Rent Controller within period specified by him. Anybody on his behalf could deposit that rent. P.L.J.1997 Lah. 395 = 1996CLC1616.

           

Whether sole testimony of landlord is suffice in eviction cases. Sole testimony of landlord is sufficient to establish his personal bona fide of premises. Where statement of landlord on oath was quote consistent with his averments made in ejectment application and neither his statement was shaken nor anything was brought in evidence to contradict his statement and tenant had not stepped in witness-box to controvert testimony of landlord.  P.L.J.1997 SC 2037 = 1997 SCMR 1062.

           

With drawn of Application on Compromise :- Parties reached compromise whereby time for vacation of shop was granted. Parties also agreed that in view of compromise landlord would also withdraw ejectment application. Ejectment application as accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Execution application was moved after expiry of stipulated time. Warrant of possession was issued which was upheld by First Appellate Court. Ejectment application having been disposed of in terms of compromise without passing ejectment order, there was no question of execution. Orders below Courts were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.-P.L.J.1997 Lah. 1498 = 1997 MLD 2981.

 

Withdrawal of ejectment application – Re-delivery of possession to tenant – Entitlement – During pendency of ejectment application an agreement was arrived at between the parties and in view of the said agreement landlord withdrew ejectment application – Landlord, later on took possession of the premises in occupation of tenants not through execution of any order of ejectment as no ejectment order was passed by Rent Controller at the time of withdrawal of ejectment application but was taken otherwise – After reconstruction of the premises, tenants filed application under S.13(4) & (5-B) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for re-delivery to them the possession of vacated premises, but application was concurrently dismissed by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority – Validity – Question of the maintainability of the application moved by the tenant for re-delivery of reconstructed premises, would have arisen only if there had been a formal order of ejectment in favour of the landlord and against the tenants – When the ejectment application was withdrawn by the landlord in view of agreement between the parties, there arose no question of passing a formal order of ejectment against the tenants – If any agreement between the parties was alleged to have been violated by the landlord, proper course for the tenants was to enforce the same against the landlord by having recourse to the Civil Court – Question of applicability of S.13(4) & (5-B) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 would arise only if the-possession of the premises in dispute had been taken by the landlord in pursuance of an order of ejectment, same having not been done, application filed by tenants, was rightly dismissed being misconceived, 2001 CLC 1349 Muhammad Ramzan v. Abdul Hadi and others 1983 CLC 2820 and Phool Muhammad v. Abdul Ghaffar 1982 CLC. 2575 ref

           

Withdrawal of suit by tenant revives status of petitioner as tenant in disputed premises. Default in making payment of rent was proved against the tenant and his ejectment was ordered after withdrawal of suit with regard to title of property. Plea of tenant before S.C. after dismissal of his writ -petition filed against ejectment order passed by Rent Controller and upheld by Appellate authorities that dispute with regard to title of property has not been decided, therefore, his possession as tenant cannot be disturbed. Plea loses sight of the fact that tenant has only himself to blame for not pursuing his earlier suit regarding title-and its unconditional withdrawal heightened the effect of ejectment proceedings against him.  P.L.J.2000 SC 1743 = 2000 SCMR 1248.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email