ALI MUHAMMAD KASSAM vs FATEH MUHAMMAD And Another
This petition arises out of an ejectment application filed by the respondents against the petitioner on the grounds of default in payment of rent, personal requirement, and damage to the property. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on all grounds, but the High Court reversed the finding regarding default and ordered the petitioner's ejectment. The core legal question is whether the payment of rent to the landlords' advocate, who had previously issued a notice to collect rent and admitted to receiving the same without a written authority after the notice period, constitutes a valid discharge of the tenant's obligation when the landlords never informed the tenant to pay directly to them. The Supreme Court held that the point raised requires consideration and granted leave to appeal, while staying the execution of the ejectment order subject to the deposit of rent in accordance with law. The key principle laid down is that payment of rent to an authorized agent or advocate acting on behalf of the landlords, in the absence of a subsequent notice revoking such authority or directing direct payment, may constitute a valid discharge of the tenant's rental obligations.
- Does the payment of rent to an advocate who was previously authorized to collect rent constitute a valid discharge of the tenant's obligation?
- Can a tenant be held in default of rent when payments were continuously made to the landlords' advocate without any intervening notice from the landlords to pay directly to them?
- Whether the lack of written authority for an agent vitiates the rent payments made to him when his agency and receipt of rent are admitted by the agent.
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--This petition arises out of an ejectment application filed by the respondents against the petitioner on grounds of (1) default in payment of rent from February 1965 to March 1972 at the rate of Rs.20 p.m., (2) personal requirement, and (3) damage to the property. The application was dismissed by the Rent Controller on a!1 the three grounds but in first appeal before the High Court the finding on default was reversed and the petitioner's ejectment was ordered.
2. On 18-9-1984 when the petition came up for hearing before this Court, an order was passed for issue of notice to the respondents for today, but none has appeared on their behalf.
3. The case of the petitioner was that he had been paying rent to Mr. Matin Khan, Advocate of the respondents, in response to notice dated 1-5-1970 received from him (Mr. Matin Khan) on behalf of the respondents and as such he was not guilty of default. This Mr. Matin Khan appearing as R.W.1 had admitted the contention in the following words: "I was authorised by the present applicants to collect rent on their behalf. Accordingly opponents had been depositing rents to me and I was issuing receipts to the opponents. I produce five receipts EXh. l-B to F. Which bear my signatures. I issued last receipt on 9-3-1972 by which I had received rent upto April 1972 from the opponent at the rate of Rs.20 p. m. The High Court observed that though the issue of notice by Mr. Matin Khan was not disputed, he had himself admitted that he had no written authority from the landlords. The High Court, therefore, held that Mr. Matin Khan could have accepted rent on behalf of the landlords only up to the period mentioned in the notice but not thereafter. It is submitted that at no the after the receipt of the said notice, had the petitioner been informed by the landlords to pay rent direct to them and not to Mr. Matin Khan and that, therefore, the rent paid to Mr. Matin Khan had amounted to a discharge of their obligation.
The point raised requires consideration, for which leave is granted. Security Rs.1,000. The execution of the order of ejectment is stayed subject to the petitioner depositing rent in accordance with law.