MUHAMMAD SAEED vs Syed NIAZ ALI SHAH
This matter originated as a leave petition challenging an order of ejectment passed by a Rent Controller against a tenant. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller acted legally in ordering the tenant to deposit arrears of rent and subsequently directing eviction due to default, despite the tenant's dispute regarding the agreed-upon rent rate. The Supreme Court held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was clearly established, as the petitioner admitted to executing the rent deed in favour of the respondent. Consequently, the Rent Controller was justified in ordering the deposit of rent under the relevant statutory provisions. Upon the petitioner's failure to comply with the rent deposit order, the Rent Controller had no alternative but to direct the tenant to surrender possession of the disputed property. The Supreme Court affirmed the ejectment order, dismissing the petition while granting the petitioner a two-month grace period to vacate the premises voluntarily, provided rent for that period was paid. The judgment reinforces the Rent Controller's authority to enforce rent deposit orders and ejectment upon default in established tenancies.
- Does a Rent Controller have the authority to order ejectment when a tenant fails to comply with a direction to deposit arrears of rent?
- Is a tenant's admission of a rent deed sufficient to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant for the purposes of rent restriction proceedings?
- Can a tenant challenge an ejectment order based on a dispute over the rent rate after admitting to the execution of a rent deed?
- Section 13(6), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1969
ORDER
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-In this leave petition the order of the Rent Controller directing deposit of arrears of rent under section 13(6) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordin--ance, 1969 and his subsequent order of ejectment dated 22-3-1971, have been challenged as illegal.
2. It appears that the petitioner was originally a tenant of the disputed shop under the respondent's father Syed Khurshid A.I Shah. Upon Khurshid A.I Shah's death the petitioner executed a rent deed on 10-4-1970 in favour of the respondent, son of the said late Khurshid A.I and agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 160 p.m. The petitioner, who is present in person before us, has admitted the execution of the aforesaid rent deed but denied that he had agreed to pay rent at the said rate. It is thus evident that the relationship of landlord and tenant has been well established. The Rent Controller is, therefore, right when he said that the petitioner had admitted the tenancy. The petitioner having committed default in the payment of rent as ordered by the Rent Controller, the Rent Controller had no other alternative but to direct that the petitioner should put the respondent in possession of the disputed property. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
3. We have, however, allowed the petitioner two months' time to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession to the respondent without the aid of any process of Court. The petitioner should also pay rent to the respondent for these two months.
Cited by 3 cases
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs NAWAZISH NAZIR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER 1976 PLD Lahore 637
- INAM HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB 1980 PLC (C. S.) 687
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Syed AFTAB ALI AND ANOTHER 1981 CLC 579