NOORUDDIN vs SIRAJUDDIN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against a High Court order directing his eviction from a shop on the grounds of default in rent payment. The High Court had ruled that a formal notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was unnecessary because the tenant possessed contemporaneous knowledge of the landlord's purchase of the property. The core legal questions involve whether the absence of a formal Section 18 notice renders the eviction order invalid despite the tenant's actual knowledge of the ownership transfer, and whether the tenant's deposits of rent under Section 10(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, were sufficient to negate the claim of default, even if technical defects existed in those deposits. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the tenant's intent to pay rent to avoid eviction warrants the exercise of judicial discretion in his favour, notwithstanding the alleged default period.
- Is a formal notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, mandatory even when the tenant has contemporaneous knowledge of the change in ownership?
- Does the deposit of rent under Section 10(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, protect a tenant from eviction for default if technical defects exist in the deposit process?
- Should judicial discretion be exercised in favour of a tenant who demonstrates an intent to pay rent to avoid eviction despite technical defaults?
- Section 18, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(3), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant; against the acceptance by the High Court, of rent appeal filed by the respondent /landlord; whereby the dismissal of application for ejectment of the petitioner was brought under challenge.
2. The High Court has ordered petitioner's eviction on ground of default and has also held that notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was not necessary as the petitioner had knowledge of what he was required to be intimated through notice under section 18.
3. The respondent purchased this shop in October, 1980. The petitioner was already a tenant under the previous landlord. The default period is from October, 1980 to July 1983. The main issues which remain to be resolved relate to: issuance of notice under section 18; in absence of any such notice, the knowledge of the petitioner almost contemporaneously, with the time of purchase by the respondent of the said purchase; and effect of the deposit of rent by the petitioner under section 10(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 as claimed by him in such manner as to leave no period of default.
4. It appears correct that the petitioner had gained some knowledge about the purchase by the respondent even during the time when the said transaction took place. In these circumstances it will have to be examined, notwithstanding the same, a formal notice under section 18 was necessary. It would also have to be examined: whether, the petitioner by making the deposits under section 10(3), did not remain liable to eviction any more, notwithstanding some technical defect in the said deposits. In this behalf it would also require serious examination: whether, the petitioner had not parted with the requisite amount of money with a desire to avoid eviction on ground of default; and if he did so; whether he was still liable to be evicted and whether discretion should not have been exercised in his favour. These and other related questions raised in the petition for leave to appeal require examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted.
5. Security Rs.5,000.
6. The appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all those documents which shall be necessary for disposal thereof.
7. Status quo to be maintained.
Cited by 3 cases
- RIAZ vs SARFRAZ and 4 others 2005 MLD 207
- Riaz vs Sarfaraz And Other K.L.R. 2006 Revenue Cases 131
- Riaz vs Sarfaraz and others 2006 C.L.R. 728