Syed MAHBOOB ALI And Others vs GHULAM RABBANI And Other
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their ejectment appeal by the Sind High Court. The respondents had filed an ejectment application on the grounds of default in rent payment, subletting, and damaging the property. The petitioners denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, but the Rent Controller ruled against them and ordered their ejectment after finding them to be defaulters in rent. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the Rent Controller was legally bound to pass a tentative rent deposit order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance and could not pass a final eviction order without it. The Supreme Court held that where tenants do not assert having paid or tendered any rent, the Rent Controller is justified in ordering eviction without taking further proceedings. The petition was dismissed, following the precedent set in Muhammad Yousaf v. Asghar Hussain.
- Whether the Rent Controller is competent to pass a final order of ejectment without passing a tentative rent order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance where the tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant and fails to tender rent?
- Does the failure to pass a tentative order for deposit of rent vitiate an ejectment order against a defaulter tenant who has not tendered any rent?
- Section 13(6), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--Respondents filed ejectment application against the petitioners on the ground that being tenants they failed to pay rent, sublet the demised premises and also damaged the property. In defence, petitioners pleaded that there was no relation--ship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent Controller decided the aforesaid issue against the petitioners and held that they were tenants of the respondents. Thereafter, the Rent Controller directed petitioners ejectment by the order dated 26-4-1975 on the ground that they were admittedly the defaulters in payment of rent and thus liable to be evicted.
2. Petitioner's appeal in Sind High Court was dismissed and they now seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
3. Mr. Faizanul Haq learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was mandatory upon the Rent Controller to pass a tentative order under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance calling upon the petitioners to deposit rent, and in the absence of such order, the Rent Controller was not competent in law A to pass the final order of ejectment against the petitioners.
4. This plea was raised in the High Court but was rejected for the reason that since the petitioners "had not asserted that they ever paid or tendered any rent to the respondents the Rent Controller rightly ordered eviction of the appellants (petitioners) from the premises without taking further proceedings in the case".
5. In somewhat similar facts and circumstances this Court in Muhammad Yousaf v. Asghar Hussain, 1980 SCMR 886 upheld the order of the Rent Controller passed in that case which had been maintained by the High Court. We also do so likewise in the present case and dismiss this petition.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others vs Syed MANSOOR ALI SHAH 1989 SCMR 511