MUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION
This matter arises from a petition challenging an impugned judgment of the High Court which allowed an appeal against an eviction order passed in favor of the petitioner. The core legal questions relate to whether valid intimation of the transfer of rented premises was given to the corporate tenant under section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and whether the tenant committed default in the payment of rent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions regarding the proper perspective of default and the sufficiency of notice to the occupant on behalf of the tenant require detailed examination. The key principle laid down is that the service of a letter of attornment upon an officer occupying the premises requires judicial examination to determine whether it constitutes a valid intimation of transfer under the relevant rent laws.
- Whether service of a letter of attornment on the Chief Medical Officer of a corporate tenant constitutes a valid intimation of transfer of premises under section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Did the tenant commit a default in the payment of rent warranting eviction under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Section 15, Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
- Section 18, Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
ORDER
S.A.NUSRAT, J. ‑‑The dispute in this petition relates to rented premises bearing No.B‑18, 41 KDA Scheme No.1 Karachi, which were rented out to the respondent by the petitioner's brother Muhammad Abdullah, who was then the owner of the property. The disputed property was transferred to the petitioner by Muhammad Abdullah, who, by a letter of attornment, addressed to Chief Medical Officer, PIA, asked him to pay rent due from 1st. May, 1980 onwards to the petitioner. After exchange of certain letters, the petitioner, on 17‑3‑1981, filed an application for eviction of the respondent under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the ground of default. The case was defended by the respondent, inter alia, on the ground that no notice was given to the PIA regarding the transfer of the premises and the service of the alleged letter of attornment on the Chief Medical Officer did not amount to valid intimation of transfer to the PIA, as the said officer had no statutory authority in the matter. The rent application was, however, allowed by the Rent Controller on 5‑2‑1984. The respondent, being aggrieved of the said order, filed an appeal before the High Court, which was allowed as per impugned judgment.
2. It was, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had failed to pay rent even to the former landlord and withheld the payment of rent to the new landlord for no justification and hence question of default was not decided by the learned High Court in the proper perspective of the facts of the case. It was also contended that the requirement of section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was satisfied inasmuch as intimation of transfer was duly given to the person occupying the premises on behalf of the respondent.
3. The above contentions, inter alia, require examination. Leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.2,500. The appeal will be heard on the same record with permission to the parties to file such documents as may be necessary. The hearing of the appeal may be fixed in April 1988.
M. I./M‑348/S Leave granted.