WALI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs Mst. HAMIDA BAI
This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment upholding the eviction of tenants from residential premises. The landlord initially filed ejectment applications under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, but passed away during proceedings. His widow subsequently issued notices under Section 14(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking summary eviction. The tenants challenged the validity of these notices, arguing they failed to meet the prescribed two-month notice period. The Supreme Court addressed whether the failure to comply with the statutory notice period rendered the eviction order invalid. The Court held that while the notice period is a statutory requirement for the tenant's benefit, the tenants' failure to raise this technical objection before the Rent Controller, coupled with the significant passage of time before the eviction order, precluded them from challenging the notice's validity. The Court affirmed that such technical objections cannot be raised to defeat the spirit of summary relief provisions when no prejudice is demonstrated, upholding the High Court's decision to dismiss the appeals.
- Can a tenant challenge the validity of a notice under Section 14(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 for the first time in appeal?
- Does the failure to comply with the statutory notice period under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 automatically invalidate an eviction order if no prejudice is shown?
- Is a technical objection regarding the notice period sustainable when the tenant has allowed the proceedings to continue for a significant duration without raising the issue?
- Section 13(2), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Section 14(1), Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J.-These appeals, by special leave, arise from the common judgment of the High Court of Sind dated 23rd of August, 1981, by which F. R. A's Nos. 242 and 243 of 1981 were dismissed.
2. The dispute in these appeals relates to the eviction of the appellants from house No. 129, situate in C. P. & Berar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Karachi. Each of them paid a monthly rent of Rs.
3. 400 to the husband of the respondent who was its owner. He filed ejectment applications in September, 1978, under section 13 (2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on grounds that they had committed default in the payment of rent and for his bona fide personal use. The appellants denied the allegations of default and bona fide personal use ; and while these applications were pending, he died on 15th of October, 1979, whereupon his widow, the respondent herein, served notices on the appellants on 30th of January, 1980 under section 14 (1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which, in the meantime, had repealed the earlier Ordinance. They were required to vacate the premises in their occupation forthwith, and as the appellants failed to do so, the respondent filed fresh applications for their summary eviction on 2nd of March, 1980. By order dated 9th of April, 1981, the Rent Controller allowed the prayer and ordered their ejectment.
4. They filed appeals in the High Court which were dismissed as aforementioned.
5. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the validity of the notices served on appellants as these did not fulfil the requirement of the prescribed period under section 14 (1) of the said Ordinance.
6. The High Court held that as the appellants had failed to take this technical objection at any stage of the proceedings and because of this inaction, they allowed the cause of action to mature on the date on which the Rent Controller passed the order of eviction which was beyond two months, no exception could be taken to the validity of the notice parti--cularly when no prejudice was caused to the appellants. It is true that the period prescribed is two months and the notices suffered from this infirmity, but if this objection had been taken before the Rent Controller, the defect would have been rectified by the respondent and the delay of a year would not have ensued. The prescribed period is for the benefit of the tenant and is intended to allow him sufficient time to vacate the premises and further he cannot be ejected summarily under section 14 of the said Ordinance a without the efflux of time. This. Is the statutory requirement, but in the circumstances of the case, as the appellants had failed to raise this objection at the earlier stage and allowed a year to pass, the High Court was correct in holding that there was no substance in this legal objection which was eminently against the spirit of the provision which allowed summary relief to the widow. In holding so, the High Court relied on the judgment this Court reported as National Steel Ltd. v. Mrs. F. Afsar (PLD 1979SC819) wherein also under similar circumstances it was held that there -was no propriety in the legal objection.
7. Accordingly, we see no error in the judgment of the High Court and dismiss both the appeals but with no order as to costs.
Cited by 7 cases
- NOOR ELAHI and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN SHINWARI and 23 1995 PLD Supreme Court 609
- ABDUL RAZZAK vs AKEEL and another 1991 CLC 1873
- IQBAL YOUSUF vs KISHWAR JEHAN 1991 SCMR 864
- FARAN SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus UNION COUNCIL, SHAIKH BHIRKIO 1989 MLD 3543
- Syed H ASAN ASKAHI RIZVI vs MUHAMMAD AZIZ 1989 PLD Supreme Court 1
- BARKATULLAH KHAN vs Mirza MUHAMMAD HASAN 1986 PLD Karachi 309
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs Sheikh RIAZ AHMAD 1984 CLC 1913(2)