Pakistan Case Law
1971 SCMR 598

Syed RIAZ ALI vs SHABBIR AHMAD KHAN

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1971 SCMR 598
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-54 of 1971
Date1971-08-24
Judge(s)Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Waheeduddin Ahmad
Authored byMuhammad Yaqub Ali
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a High Court judgment ordering the eviction of a tenant. The tenant had admittedly defaulted in paying monthly rent for ten months, contrary to a written lease agreement specifying monthly payment. The Rent Controller and District Judge had condoned the delay on the ground that the landlord periodically accepted lump-sum rent payments for several months. The core legal question was whether the acceptance of rent in lump sum varied the written lease terms or justified exercising judicial discretion under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance to condone a ten-month default. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's eviction order, holding that under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act 1872, oral evidence or past acceptance cannot vary a written lease agreement. Furthermore, accepting past rent merely condoned past defaults without altering future payment terms, and a ten-month default could not be judicially condoned.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a tenant adduce evidence of past acceptance of rent in lump sum to vary the payment terms of a written lease agreement?
  • Does a landlord's acceptance of rent for several months together alter the written terms of a lease regarding monthly rent payment?
  • Can the Rent Controller validly exercise judicial discretion under Section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance to condone a rent default of ten months?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
  • Section 91, Evidence Act 1872
  • Section 92, Evidence Act 1872
evictiondefault in payment of rentlease agreementRent Restriction Ordinancecondonation of delayjudicial discretionEvidence Act

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The petitioner admittedly com--mitted default in payment of rent for ten months to the respondent-- landlord. In the agreement of lease it was specifically provided that rent for each month will be paid in the next succeeding month. Under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance the petitioner was liable to be evicted in case of default in payment of rent for a single month. The Rent Controller and the District Judge, however, condoned the delay in the view that the respon--dent was responsible for giving a false impression to the petitioner that rent will be collected periodically. Reliance was placed on receipt of rent by the respondent for several months together.

2. In law the petitioner could not lead evidence in variation of the terms and conditions of the written agreement of lease (sections 91 and 92, Evidence Act). Moreover, the receipt of rent by the respondent for several months at a time showed that the landlord had condoned the default and not that he had consented to vary the terms and conditions of lease regarding payment of rent. In this view the High Court has properly set aside the orders of the lower Courts and allowed the application for eviction.

3. It is urged that under section 13 the Rent Controller had the discretion to condone delay in payment of rent. That is true, but discretion is to be exercised judicially and not in an arbitrary manner.

4. Default of ten months could not be condoned on any hypothesis. No exception can, therefore, be taken to the judgment and order of the High Court.

5. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Cited by 37 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.