ABDUL HAMEED vs MUHAMMAD ISLAM SIDDIQUI
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Sind High Court which upheld an eviction order against the petitioner for failing to comply with a tentative rent deposit order. The central legal controversy concerns whether the petitioner had timely deposited the rent for November 1977, as the High Court had determined that if the payment for that month was regularized, the subsequent payments would also be considered regular. The petitioner contended, supported by the Nazir's report, that he had indeed deposited the rent for November 1977, but the High Court had erroneously attributed the relevant receipt to a separate case between the same parties involving a different shop. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that a thorough examination of the record suggested the eviction order might have been passed in error due to this oversight. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, stayed the eviction of the petitioner subject to continued regular rent deposits, and held that the matter required further consideration on the merits.
- Does a failure to properly attribute rent receipts to the correct case constitute sufficient grounds for an eviction order?
- Can a tenant be evicted for non-compliance with a tentative rent order if the record indicates the rent was actually deposited?
- Is a Nazir's report regarding rent deposits a relevant document for determining compliance with a court's tentative rent order?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKHJ.-- This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of learned Judge of Sind High Court dated 12th January, 1986 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner and in result upholding the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller against the petitioner for not having complied the tentative order passed by him earlier by which petitioner was directed to deposit rent in Court at the rate of Rs.125 per month.
2. The controversy in the case relates to the question whether petitioner deposited rent for the month of November 1977, for, even according to the judgment of the High Court of Sind, if this was so, then "payment made in the subsequent months seem to be regularised." In this behalf learned Judge in the High Court who scrutinise the case noticed that the petitioner had no doubt paid rent in the sum of Rs.125 per month for the month of November, 1977 under Receipt No. 23609 but this receipt according to him related to another case between the same parties regarding another shop.
3. Petitioner who appears in person in support of the petition referred to the Nazir's report relating to payments in respect of both the shops which show that he deposited the rent twice for the same month, namely November, 1977 on 30th November, 1977 under Receipt No. 2309 and also under Receipt No. 23608. It seems to us that had the case been examined thoroughly the original order of eviction would not have been passed against the petitioner. On this view of the case we feel that the plea raised in support of the petition deserves consideration of this Court. We therefore grant the leave appeal and allow the petition. Security Rs.5,000.
4. Appeal will be heard on the present record but is open to the parties to file additional documents, if any.
5. Petitioner shall not be evicted from the demised premises till the appeal is decided subject to the condition that he shall deposit the rent in Court regularly.