IMRAN LATIF and another vs MUHAMMAD SAIM JALIL and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal concerning the vacation of rented premises and the payment of rent. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller or appellate courts possess the statutory power under the relevant rent restriction legislation to order payment of rent and arrears where the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied. The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and partly allowed them, holding that no provision in the governing statute empowers the Rent Controller or courts in the hierarchy to pass an order for the payment of rent and arrears in such circumstances. The key principle laid down is that courts cannot issue monetary orders for rent arrears without explicit statutory backing under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, though landlords retain the remedy to claim arrears through appropriate legal proceedings.
- Does the Rent Controller have the power to order payment of rent and arrears when the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied?
- Does the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 empower courts in the hierarchy to pass orders for rent arrears in the absence of a specific enabling provision?
- Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963
ORDER
Ejaz Afzal Khan, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 07.03.2012 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, whereby the learned Judge in its Chambers dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by observing as under: "8. For the reasons supra, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The appeal being devoid of force is hereby dismissed. However, the appellant is given a period of two months from today for vacation of the rented premises subject to payment of rent from August, 2001 till vacation at the rate of Rs,5,000/- per month."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that where relationship of landlord and tenant is denied the Rent Controller has the power to order ejectment of the tenant but no provision of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 empowers the Rent Controller or any other Court in the hierarchy to pass the order mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that where there has not been any dispute about the quantum of rent and the arrears thereof, the Rent Controller or for that matter any other Court in the hierarchy could pass an order directing the respondent-to pay rent or its arrears.
4. We have gone through the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We have also read most of the provisions of the Act to find the one empowering the learned Rent Controller or any other Court in the hierarchy to pass the order mentioned above, but we could not find any. Nor could the learned counsel for the respondent advert to a provision or case law in this behalf. When this being the case we convert these petitions into appeals, allow CMAs for condonation of delay and partly allow the appeals by modifying the impugned judgments only to the extent of payment of rent from August, 2001 till vacation of the premises.
However, none of the observations made above would debar the respondent from claiming arrears under the law from the appellants.