Pakistan Case Law
1975 SCMR 355

Sh. MUHAMMAD HASAN & Co. vs Mian MAHMOOD AHMAD KHAN

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1975 SCMR 355
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 3-R of 1974
Date1975-03-21
Judge(s)Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and Salahuddin Ahmed
Authored bySalahuddin Ahmed
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arose from a petition filed by a tenant challenging an order of ejectment passed against him on the ground of default in the payment of rent. While the Rent Controller initially exercised discretion in the tenant's favor upon finding that the default was not deliberate, the appellate/High Court forum reversed this determination. The core legal question was whether an alleged practice of paying rent in lump sums every six to twelve months could constitute an implied contract overriding statutory default provisions. The Supreme Court upheld the decision against the tenant, noting that the alleged practice was neither properly pleaded in the written statement nor proven by the evidence. The Court held that, in any event, any alleged implied contract or practice contrary to Section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 cannot prevail over the express statutory command. To claim protection under Section 13, a tenant must strictly comply with its terms and avoid falling within the mischief of Section 13(2). Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a practice or implied contract regarding payment of rent prevail over the express provisions of Section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Can a tenant claim protection under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 if their conduct falls within the scope of default under Section 13(2)?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
  • Section 13(2), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ejectmenttenant defaultrent restrictionimplied contractlump sum rent paymentdiscretion of Rent Controller

ORDER

1. ' SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner is a tenant, and be has been aggrieved by an order of ejectment passed against him on the ground of default in payment of rent.

2. ' The Rent Controller had found that the default was not deliberate, and accordingly exercised his discretion in favour of the tenant and disallowed ejectment.

3. ' The petitioner's contention has been that a practice grow up, and he paid rents in a lump sum every six months, or one year. He, however, failed to prove this practice, and this is evident from the instances he gave at pages 25-26 of the paper book.

4. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the implied contract on the basis of the aforesaid practice was not pleased by the petitioner in his written statement, and that in any event such a contract was contrary to the provisions of section 13(2) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), and, therefore, the former could not prevail over the latter. The petitioner has failed to controvert this legal position.

5. ' The petitioner claims benefit under section 13 of the said Ordinance, and he can, therefore, do so only if his case does not fall within the mischief of section 13(2) of the Ordinance.

6. ' There is no substance in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.

Cited by 20 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.