FIDA MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment order passed against a tenant by the Rent Controller, Quetta, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court of Baluchistan. The respondent landlord sought eviction based on the tenant's default in rent payments and the personal requirement of the property for his sons. The tenant contested the landlord's title, asserting a tenancy agreement with a firm rather than the respondent, and argued that rent payments were adjusted against goods provided. The Supreme Court examined whether the tenant's denial of the landlord's title was justified and whether the default and personal need were established. The Court held that the mere issuance of rent receipts in the name of a firm does not negate the established landlord-tenant relationship inherited from the deceased owner. It further ruled that the tenant's denial of title was unjustified, the default was not legally excusable through the claimed adjustment, and the findings regarding the landlord's bona fide personal need were concurrent. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the eviction order.
- Does the issuance of rent receipts in the name of a firm, rather than an individual, automatically negate the landlord-tenant relationship between a tenant and the deceased owner's heir?
- Can a tenant justify a default in rent payment by claiming an adjustment against goods supplied to the landlord's agent?
- Is a tenant's denial of a landlord's title considered unjustified when the tenancy relationship is established through the devolution of property?
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: --The petitioner, a tenant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, Quetta, dated 27-12-1989, whereby his appeal against an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller, Quetta on 29-6-1989, was dismissed.
2. Muhammad Hayat, the respondent, sought the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that being a tenant of his deceased father Ghulam Qadir, he had failed to pay or tender rent due from May, 1986 and a sum of Rs. 210 was due from him as rent. He also pleaded the need of his sons for the property. The petitioner in reply to the eviction application *Sated that Ghulam Qadir had died intestate, that the respondent Muhammad Hayat had no interest in the property, that he had a privity of contract as a tenant with his landlord M/s. M. Hayat & Sons which is a firm. As regards the payment of rent, he stated that from June, 1986 onwards, Mr. War etc. Who used to realize rent had obtained vegetables from a shop to the tune of Rs. 500 corrected to Rs. 430. The need of the sons was denied.
3. The Rent Controller framed the issues, found the denial of the landlord's title contumacious and the default and need for the sons established and ordered the eviction. The appeal failed.
4. Mr. Khalid Malik, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the receipts for the payment of rent were issued to the petitioner on the letter-head bf the firm M/s. M. Hayat and Sons and in this manner the tenant bona fide believed himself to be the tenant of the firm. He also contended that the personal need of the landlord for his sons was not established. About the default, the same explanation was given as has been reproduced.
5. As it is no longer disputed that the petitioner was the tenant of Ghulam Qadir who was the father of the respondent, the mere fact, that the rent receipts were issued in the name of M/s. M. Hayat & Sons was not sufficient to justify the defence which was taken by the petitioner. As regards the relationship of landlord and tenant, this relationship also devolves on transfer of the property or comes into existence on agreement between the two parties and not merely by issuing receipt to one for the other or paying rent for one to someone else. There is nothing in the statement of the petitioner or otherwise to suggest that any such relationship independent of the devolution of the property had come into existence. His denial of the title was indeed unjustified.
6. The default has not been directly denied and the sort of the adjustment that is claimed is not available under the law condoning such default.
7. As regards the personal need, the two Authorities have come to the conclusion that it was established and it was bona fide.
8. No case is made out for our interference and leave to appeal is refused.