SHAMSUDDIN vs Mst. NAZIRAN AND 2 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of the High Court to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with an ejectment order passed against the petitioner by the Rent Controller and upheld by the appellate authority. The core legal questions involve the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, the requirement of statutory notices under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, and the effect of non-payment of rent. The Supreme Court held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was duly established, and although the absence of notice under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance initially excused the tenant regarding default, his continued failure to tender or deposit rent after the appellate authority's decision constituted a forfeiture of his right of tenancy. The Court laid down the principle that a tenant who withholds rent despite an adverse finding on the relationship of landlord and tenant forfeits equitable relief and discretionary constitutional remedies.
- Does a tenant forfeit the right of tenancy by failing to tender or deposit rent after an appellate authority affirms the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Whether the High Court can properly refuse discretionary constitutional relief to a tenant who withholds rent despite adverse findings?
- Does an offer to deposit arrears of rent before the Supreme Court cure a prior default established during lower proceedings?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
- Section 13-A, Rent Restriction Ordinance
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal by the High Court to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction, with the order of ejectment dated 10-10-1982 passed against him by the Rent Controller, Lahore, and upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, on '2-2-1983.
2. The property in question had been transferred in favour of Haji Muhammad Yaqoob, from whom it had been purchased by Mst. Naziran, respondent No. 1, by a registered deed dated 19-4-1972. The petitioner had challenged the maintainability of the ejectment application instituted by her on 22- 12-1973, on the ground of (1) absence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties (2) want of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958and (3) want of notice under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The proceedings prolonged because of a number of remand orders and ultimately the Rent Controller on 10-10-1982 held that no notice under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance had been sent or served but that a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act had been served on the petitioner and as finding on the issues of relationship and damage to the property in favour of the landlord had already been affirmed by the appellate Court, he directed the ejectment of the petitioner. The High Court not only found no legal infirmity in the aforesaid order passed: by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate authority but also in view of the conduct of the petitioner in not having tendered or deposited rent in spite of a finding on the issue of relationship, held that he had forfeited his right of tenancy and as such it declined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction.
3. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the original transferee of the property had been established by the factum of the transfer and the petitioner had become liable to pay rent to the transfree on receipt of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. If Mst. Naziran, purchaser from the transferee, had not served notice under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, the petitioner had some excuse on the question of default but after the matter was finally decided by the appellate authority, there was no valid reason for withholding the tender or deposit of the rent. In view of this conduct on the part of the petitioner, no exception can be taken to the High Court declining to extend discretionary relief in his favour.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner now offers to deposit all the arrears. This he should have done before the High Court. His offer to deposit the arrears of rent now will not affect the correctness of the order of the High Court, Which he is seeking to assail before us. The petition for leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed.