MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs SHAUKAT ALI AND Another
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of ejectment passed against him on the ground of default in payment of rent to the respondents, who had purchased the premises via a registered sale deed from the original owner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's plea of prior purchase and pendency of a specific performance suit exempted him from paying rent to the current registered owners. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the ejectment order was properly made, as the petitioner failed to establish his plea of prior purchase before the Rent Controller by tendering the original document, and could not even report the fate of his civil suit filed in 1978. The court affirmed that a tenant cannot withhold rent from a landlord holding a registered sale deed without establishing a valid legal title through admissible evidence. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Does a pending suit for specific performance regarding a property excuse a tenant from paying rent to the holder of a registered sale deed?
- Can a plea of prior purchase be sustained before a Rent Controller without tendering the original document of purchase?
- Is an ejectment order justified when a tenant fails to pay rent and cannot substantiate a claim of ownership?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petitioner has been ordered to be ejected on the ground that he failed to pay the rent to the respondents, who had purchased the premises through a Registered Sale Deed from the original owner.
2. Mr. M. A. Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had, in fact, purchased the property from the original owner prior to its sale in favour of the respondents and that he had filed a suit for specific performance in the civil Court in this behalf.
3. Unfortunately, he is not in a position to intimate us to the fate of this suit although it was filed as far back as 1978.
4. As for the plea of prior purchase, taken before the Rent Controller the same was rightly dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had failed to tender the original document in Court, to establish this plea.
5. M. Z. M.