RAZAUL HAQ vs MUHAMMAD HANIF
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld a Rent Controller's order directing the petitioner's eviction for failing to deposit rent in compliance with a previous court order. The petitioner contended that he had consistently paid rent via money order since 1977, which the respondent-landlord accepted until November 1984, and that he was unaware of the Rent Controller's specific order dated 9-12-1984 because his counsel failed to communicate it. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's history of regular payments via money order, even after the ejectment application was filed, and the claim regarding the lack of communication of the Rent Controller's order, presented a substantial question requiring deeper examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, stayed the eviction order subject to the condition that the petitioner continues to deposit rent regularly in court, and allowed the parties to file additional documents for the final hearing.
- Does the consistent acceptance of rent via money order by a landlord after the filing of an ejectment application constitute a valid defense against eviction for non-payment?
- Can an eviction order based on a failure to comply with a court directive be challenged if the tenant claims the order was never communicated to them by counsel?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind HighCourt, dated 2-2-1986 dismissing petitioner's appeal and in result upholding the order of Rent Controller directing petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that he had failed to deposit rent in Court inn compliance, with the earlier order passed by him, dated 9-12- 1984.
2. The plea raised by the petitioner in defence was that he was regularly sending rent to respondent- landlord through money order from June, 1977 and the respondent accepted the same up to November, 1984 but refused to do so when he sent rent by money-order for the month of December, 1984 and thereafter he deposited rent in Court and he was, therefore, not guilty of non- payment of rent. As regards the order of the Rent Controller petitioner explained that it was not communicated to him by his counsel at all.
3. It seems correct that petitioner was paying rent to respondent --landlord through money order ever since June, 1977 and these payments were accepted by the respondent up to November, 1984 where after he refused to accept the same. Petitioner's plea that respondent was accepting rent through money order in spite of the filing of the ejectment application and that he was totally unaware of the order of the Rent Controller, dated 9-12-1984 deserves consideration. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal and allow the petition. Security Rs.500.
4. Appeal will be heard on the present record but it will be open to the parties to file additional documents, if any, Petitioner shall not be evicted from the demised premises till the appeal is decided provided he continues to deposit rent in the Court regularly.