MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs MANZOOR HUSSAIN
This petition arises from concurrent orders of ejectment passed against the petitioner-tenant by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Sind High Court. The petitioner resisted the ejectment application on the grounds of default in rent and personal need by denying the landlord's title and the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, asserting instead that he might be a trespasser. The core legal question was whether a tenant who admits the landlord's transfer of property from Settlement authorities can challenge the landlord's title based on pending civil litigation without revocation of the transfer, and thereby deny the tenancy. The Supreme Court held that since the transfer in favour of the respondent remained valid and unrevoked, the petitioner could not deny the landlord's title, nor could the rent forums go behind the transfer document. The Court affirmed that an occupant of the premises at the time of transfer is liable to pay rent and cannot evade ejectment proceedings by raising a belated plea of trespasser status.
- Can a tenant deny the title of a landlord who is a transferee from the Settlement authorities on the basis of pending civil litigation without proving revocation of the transfer?
- Whether an occupant of premises at the time of transfer by Settlement authorities can avoid ejectment proceedings by claiming the status of a trespasser?
- Can rent forums go behind a transfer document issued by the Settlement authorities during ejectment proceedings?
- Section 2(j), Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The petitioner, a tenant, is aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal by the Sind High Court on 12-9-1983 from an order of ejectment dated 30-5-1983 passed by the Rent Controller, Larkana.
2. The petitioner had opposed the ejectment application, which had been filed on grounds of default in payment of rent and personal use of the landlord, by denial of the very title of the landlord and of receipt of any notice from him and consequently the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. His pleas, however, failed before both the Courts below.
3. The petitioner had in his evidence admitted that the respondent) landlord was a transferee of the property from the Settlement authorities in the year 1980-81. His denial of the title was, however, simply based on some litigation going on in civil Court concerning that transfer. Since he had not shown that the transfer made in favour of the respondent had been revoked, or suspended by the Settlement authorities, he could not deny the respondent's title, nor could the Courts below go behind the transfer document in the present proceeding. His denial as regards receipt of notice was also repelled by both the Courts on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties. Since he admits his having been in occupation of the premises at the time of transfer, he was clearly liable to pay rent. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is nevertheless not tenant within the meaning of the term defined under section 2(j) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and that he could be a trespasser, for which the remedy of the respondent was in a civil Court. But no such specific plea had been taken before the Rent Controller, where, on the other hand, his plea that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed was mainly based on his denial of the landlord's title.