MUHAMMAD IQBAL HAIDER and another vs VTH RENT CONTROLLER/SENIOR

#TBS error? #TBE ' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The respondent No,2 filed an application before the Vth Rent Controller/Senior Civil Judge, Karachi Central, under section 15(2)(ii) and (vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance No,XVII of 1979 for eviction of the petitioner No,1 from the premises in dispute on the ground of bona fide personal need and wilful default in payment of rent. The petitioner No,1 filed his written statement thereby denying the relationship of landlord and the tenant. The respondent No,2 also filed an application under section 16 of the Ordinance for a direction to the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent to which the petitioners filed his objections thereto and also an application under section 17 of the Ordinance for award of compensation to him. By order dated 17- 7-2008 the Rent Controller/Senior Civil. Judge, Karachi Central, allowed the application of the respondent No,2 under section 16(1) and dismissed the one filed by the petitioner under section 17 of the Ordinance. The petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs,4,50,000 within 25 days as arrears of rent and also to deposit future rent. The parties were directed to lead the evidence in the main case. Therefore, the petitioner filed Constitutional Petition No,S-346 of 2008 which was dismissed, vide the impugned judgment, dated 29-8- 2008, passed by a learned Single Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.

2. The petitioner No,

1. Appearing in person vehemently argued that the petitioner had already instituted two civil suits; one for specific performance of the agreement of sale and the other for cancellation of the sale-deed executed by respondent No,3 in favour of respondent No,2. There did not exist any relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties. It was further stated that in the absence of final determination, the Rent Controller was not justified in directing the petitioner No,1 to deposit the arrears of rent and to make payment of future rent, particularly when the matter was already sub judice before the Civil Court. The Rent Controller had failed to take all the material facts into consideration including the pendency of civil suits between the parties.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No,2 supported the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the order, dated 17-7-2008 passed by the Rent Controller.

4. We have heard the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No,2 at length and have also perused the available record. We find that the institution of two civil suits by the petitioner; one for specific performance of agreement and the other for cancellation of sale- deed of the respondent No,2 per se, would not be sufficient to refuse compliance of an order of the Rent Controller under section 16(1) of the Ordinance pending final determination. Reference can be placed on the cases of Nazir Ahmed v. Mst. Sardar Bibi and others 1989 SCM R 913, Mst. Bor Bibi v.

Abdul Qadir 1996 SCMR 87, Waheedullah v. Mst. Rehana Nasim and others 2004 SCM R 1568, Haji Jumma Khan v. Haji Zarin Khan PLD 1999 SC 1101, Khawaja Ammar Hussain v. Muhammad Shabbiruddin Khan PLD 1986 Kar. 74, Habib Khan v. Haji Haroon-ur-Rasheed 1989 CLC 783, Gohar Ali Shah v. Shahzada Alam 2000 M LD 82, Iqbal and others v. Mst. Rabia Bibi and another PLD 1991 SC 242 and Syed Imran Ahmed v. Bilal and another Civil. Appeal No,2230 of 2008, decided by this Court on 9-6-2009. Once the petitioner was prima facie, shown to be inducted as a tenant of the demised premises, he could not claim any exemption from payment of rent on account of institution of suits for specific performance and for cancellation of sale-deed. Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 lays down that no tenant of immovable property shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that his landlord had a title of such property. The relationship of landlord and a tenant is not severed even if the execution of an agreement to sell is admitted. The petitioner was not absolved of his responsibility of compliance of order passed by the Rent Controller under the provisions of section 16 of the Ordinance for making of payment of arrears and future rent. In our view, the impugned judgment of the High Court is plainly correct to which no exception can be taken.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.