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.]


(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,

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Case Law