YOUSAF AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR AND ANOTHER
This order disposes of two petitions for leave to appeal filed by tenants against a High Court judgment dismissing their First Rent Appeals against eviction orders issued under Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The landlords, acting as Mutwallis (trustees) of a Wakf property, sought eviction of the tenants on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The primary legal question raised by the petitioners was whether Mutwallis, who do not own the property since ownership of Wakf property vests in the Almighty under Islamic law, qualify as 'landlords' under the Ordinance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the statutory definition of 'landlord' under Section 2(f) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 includes any person authorized or entitled to receive rent. Furthermore, since the tenants had admitted paying rent to the Mutwallis, they were estopped from challenging their title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1872.
- Does a Mutwalli or trustee of a Wakf property qualify as a landlord under Section 2(f) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Can a tenant who has paid rent to a Mutwalli challenge the Mutwalli's title or locus standi as a landlord in eviction proceedings under Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Section 2(f), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
- Section 15, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
- Section 116, Evidence Act 1872
ORDER
' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This order will dispose of (1) C. P. S. L. A. No, 541 of 1985 filed by Yousaf and
(2) C. P. S. L. A. No, 550 of 1985 filed by Turab Ali. Both the petitions are directed against the same judgment of the High Court dated 25-9-1985, whereby First Rent Appeals Nos. 447 and 449 of 1983; filed by the two petitioners respectively, were dismissed. Both the petitions involve a common question of law.
2. Facts briefly are that Muhammad .Zubair Khan and Hameed Asghar (respondents) are Mutwallis, or trustees, of the trust created by late Haji Muhammad Istifa Khan. They filed two separate ejectment applications under section 1 5(vii) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, against Yousaf and Turab Ali (petitioners in the two pet tions under consideration), for their eviction from the premises occupied by them in the trust property situated in Garden East, Karachi. Both these applications were based on the ground that the landlords bona fide need the premises in question for their personal use and occupation as they were living in a rented house in North Nazimabad, Karachi.
3. The learned Rent Controller, after recording the evidence produced by the parties, allowed both the petitions and ordered ejectment of the petiriones, vide its order dated 29-3-1984. The tenants filed two separate F. R. As. Before the High Court which were dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 11-2-1985.
Hence the present petitions, one by each tenant.
4. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners before us that the Mutwallis, are not landlords within the meaning of the word, as used in section 1 5 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and they had therefore, no locus standi to file the ejectment applications. In support of this contention be urged that according to the Mulla's Muslim Law the ownership of a Wakf property is vested in the Almighty alone. And the Mutwallis cannot therefore be regarded as landlords of the premises in question.
5. We are afraid this contention is wholly misconceived. The term `landlord' has been specifically defined in section 2(f) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and reads as follows :- "2. Definitions.-In this Ordinance, unless there is anything repugnan in the subject of context :-
(a) to (e)
(f) landlord' means the owner of the premises and includes a person who is for the time being authorized or entitled to receive rent in respect of such premises."
A reading of this provision clearly shows that the word 'landlord' ha been given an extending meaning, to include not only the owners but also persons who, for the time being, are either authorized or entitled t receive rent in respect of the premises in question and they need not be owners of the same.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that mutwallls 0 trustees or managers of Wakf properties, and are, inter ali, entitled to receive the rent of the Wakf properties which have been given on lease. He. Also admitted that the premises in question were let out to the petitioners by the respondents and it is to them that they (i,e, th petitioners) used to pay the monthly rent.
' In view of these admissions, it is evident that it does not lie in their mouth to deny that the two respondents are their landlords for the purpose of section 15 of the said Ordinance, not only because .The respondents-mutwallis are covered by the definition of the word 'landlord' as given in section- 2 (f) of the aforementioned Ordinance, but also because of the bar placed on the petitioners by section 116 of the Evidence Act. Refer to Kalimullah v. Amin Hazin and others (1), in which it has been observed as follows :- ' It seems to us that the High Court has rightly held that once a person has accepted another as his landlord and entered into possession of the premises as such tenant, he cannot be allowed to challenge the title of his landlord."
' In view of the above observations, both the petitions are dismissed as having no merit. No order as to costs.
(1) 1976 SCMR 77
Cited by 9 cases
- Rehmatullah Brohi vs Ghulam Sarwar Sadhayo 2023 SHC 325, 2024 CLC 1158
- Abdul Hameed Asghar vs Learned Vth ADJ, Khi East and another 2022 SHC 494
- Abdul Hameed Asghar (through L.Rs.) and others vs Vth Additional District 2023 CLC 344
- KASHIF ANWAR vs DISTRICT JUDGE, HYDERABAD and 2 others 2013 YLR 469
- ZIA AZIZ vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF 1993 MLD 2222
- Sh. MUHAMMAD KHALID vs FAKHRUDDIN 1992 CLC 2307
- Kh. MUHAMMAD KUMAIL vs GANI AND TAYAB Ltd. 1990 MLD 1177
- Mst. SHAMIMUR REHAN vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF CHAMAN 1989 MLD 189
- FAYYAZ KHAN vs Mst. AMNA BIBI 1987 MLD 2807