MALKA BEGUM vs MEHR ALI HASHMI
This civil appeal addressed whether a tenant is liable to ejectment for default in rent payment when the tenant asserts a past practice of the landlord collecting rent at irregular intervals and fails to prove such practice. The core legal question was whether a tenant can successfully defend an ejectment petition for default by pleading a prevailing practice of lump-sum rent collection by the landlord's collector, despite the landlord's denial and lack of sufficient supporting evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the legal obligation to pay or tender rent rests upon the tenant and not the landlord to collect, the burden of proving a practice of deferred collection lies heavily on the tenant, and sporadic instances of delayed collections are insufficient to establish such a practice. The Court ruled that the tenant was in default, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the ejectment order passed by the Additional District Judge.
- Whether a tenant is liable to ejectment on the ground of default when rent is not paid within the period prescribed by law?
- Does a past practice of collecting rent at intervals through a rent collector constitute a valid defense against an allegation of default?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish a prevailing practice of delayed rent collection by the landlord?
- Is a tender of rent made subsequent to the institution of an ejectment proceeding effective to cure a default?
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The question for decision in this appeal for which leave had been granted is whether in view of the denial by the landlord of the tenant's assertion as to the past practice of collection of rents at intervals through rent collector and also in the absence of any proof thereof the tenant was liable to ejectment on the admitted position that the rents had not been paid to the landlord.
2. In the proceeding instituted on 22-5-1971 for ejectment of the tenant upon the allegation of default in payment of rent for the period from December 1970 to April 1971, his defence was that according to the past prevailing practice rent was collected by the rent collector of the landlord for 2-3 months or more at a time ; that the rent collector had failed to collect the rent in question and that when the rent was tendered, the landlord refused to accept the same, with the result that the tenant had to remit the arrears by money order on 27-8-1971. In support he produced eight rent receipts, some of which showed that rent was collected in lump sum for a period of more than one month at a time. The Controller, thereupon, decided the issue against the landlordy and dismissed her application on 30-8-1975. Her appeal, however, succeeded and an order of ejectment was passed by the Additional District Judge on 31-1-1977. The tenant preferred a second appeal in the High Court which succeeded on 7-4-197.9 upon the view that though the question was not one of vested right of the tenant but it was of the practice of the landlord of collecting rent in lump sum which was a good defence for rebutting the allegation of default.
3. It is by now well-established that tender of rent after the period prescribed by law, is no proper tender and that the tenant is guilty of default though the acceptance of delayed payment can mean a condonation of that default. See Fida Hussain v. Muhammad Ibrahim (1) and Alif Din v. Khadim Hussain (2), However, since the Controller has a discretion to direct or not the ejectment of the tenant in spite of the latter's default, the conduct of the parties may be of relevance. A defence based merely on the c ground of the landlord receiving or collecting rents at intervals of several months has, however, not been considered as a good defence. See Textile Trading Co. Ltd. v. Jalilur Rehman (3) and Muhammad Hasan & Co. v. Mahmood Ahmad (4). In any case, since the tenant is under a legal obligation to pay rent to the landlord and not that the landlord should go to collect, the rent, the onus to establish the practice as a defence lies heavily on the$ tenant.
4. In the case in hand, the landlord had denied the practice, in repudiation of which the tenant had produced eight receipts Exhs. 0/2 to 0/9, only for of which, according to learned counsel, showed receipt of intervals as given below : {{TABLE TEXT}}
(i) Exb. 0/5 dated 5-11-1968 for three months, i. e. 8/68 to 10/68; (11 1972 SCMR 262 (2) 1980 SCMR 767
(3) 1972 SCMR 384 (4) 1975 SCMR 355
(ii) Exh. 0/4 dated 14-3-1969 for three months, i. e., 12/68, 1/69 and 2/69.
(iii) Exh. 0/2 dated 16-1-1970 for three months, i,e,, 10/69 to 12/69 ; and
(iv) Exh. 0/6 dated 10-7-1970 for two months i. e., 5/70 and 6/70. {{FOOT NOTE}} The other receipts relate to rents for a single month. The tenant, who has been in the property for more than twelve years, was not able to produce any other evidence to establish the practice. On the contrary, he admitted in his cross-examination : "It is correct to suggest that all the receipts with me, which have not been produced, are receipts for each single months." On E such evidence, the defence based on the plea of the landlord's practice of collecting rent at intervals was not a good defence. The tenant was clearly in default and his tendering the rent subsequent to the institution of the ejectment proceeding was of no avail. The High Court had thus fallen in error in reversing the order of the Additional District Judge.
5. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and restore that of the Additional District Judge.
Cited by 16 cases
- Naseer Ahmed and another vs Ghafoor Khan 2021 PLJ Quetta 223, 2021 MLD 1180
- ABDULLAH and anothers vs Mst. FARZANA 2014 CLC 1463
- FAZAL DIN vs AMJAD ALI 2012 CLC 1955
- ABDUL SHAKOOR and anothers vs M/s. ABDUL RAZZAQUEABDUL SATTAR, 1995 PLD Karachi 179
- (M/S.) ABDUL SHAKOOR vs ABDUL RAZZAQUE K.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 461
- Mrs. NASEER FATIMA And 2 Other vs Mst. SURAYIA ABID ALI 1994 PLD Karachi 468
- Mrs. NASEER FATIMA and 2 others vs Mst. SURAYIA ABID ALI 1994 PLD Karachi 468
- SAEEDA BANO Versus SAIMA SILK FACTORY 1994 CLC 1894
- SHAMSHAD BEGUM Alias PAPO vs HANEEFA 1991 SCMR 1953
- SHAFAAT HUSSAIN vs MASOOD HASAN KHAN 1991 CLC 1962
- Mst. RAZIA SULTANA vs Mrs. MUHAMMAD HASAN KHAN and 9 others 1991 CLC 632
- NIAZ AHMAD ZAIDI Versus BISMILLAH BEGUM 1990 CLC 1061
- ADAM LIMITED vs Messrs GULF TRADING CO. 1987 MLD 2096
- TAHIR ALI AND 2 Other vs MESSRS SH. MIRAN BUX KARAM BUX 1987 PLD Karachi 130
- IEZED EXPORT AND IMPORT COMPANY vs BAHADUR YAR JUNG ACADEMY, KARACHI 1985 MLD 1171
- MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD and 3 others 1984 MLD 1116