Mst. HAJRAN BEGUM through Legal Heirs and anothers vs INAYATUR REHMAN
The matter concerns a dispute over the tenancy of a commercial shop following the death of the original tenant, Mst. Hajran Begum. The respondents sought eviction on grounds of rent default and unauthorized sub-letting. During the pendency of the First Rent Appeal (F.R.A.) in the High Court, the original tenant died, and her siblings, Mst. Shamsun Nisa and Muhammad Rafique, sought to be impleaded as legal representatives. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that these siblings did not qualify as successor tenants under the definition of 'tenant' in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, as they were not in possession or occupation of the premises upon the tenant's death. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the High Court erred by applying a hyper-technical approach. The Court clarified that the statutory definition requires heirs to be in possession or occupation 'after the death of the tenant,' not necessarily at the exact moment of demise. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal, remanded the matter to the High Court for decision on merits, and directed the impleadment of the legal representatives.
- Does the definition of 'tenant' in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance require heirs to be in possession of the premises at the exact moment of the tenant's death?
- Can an appeal be dismissed on the ground that legal representatives of a deceased tenant do not qualify as successor tenants without considering the statutory requirement of possession after death?
- Are the siblings of a deceased tenant entitled to be impleaded as legal representatives in a pending rent appeal?
- Section 2(j), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---The subject-matter of these proceedings is a shop situated on Qazi Abdul Qayyum Road, Gari Khata, Hyderabad, belonging to the respondents. Such shop, per agreement dated 1-12-1976, was let out to one Muhammad Hanif at a monthly rental of Rs,200. The said Muhammad Hanif, having expired in April, 1982, was succeeded by his widow, Mst. Hajran Begum and the shop continued to run, allegedly on the widow's behalf, by Abdul Ghafoor, petitioner No,2, who happened to be the husband of Mst. Shamsun Nisa, a sister of Mst. Hajran Begum. In course of time, the respondents filed Rent Case No,277 of 1984 on the two-fold grounds of default in the payments of rent as from May 1982 and sub-letting of the premises in favour of the said Abdul Ghafoor. An order of eviction dated 30-4-1986 was returned by the learned Controller, giving rise to F.R.A. No, 169 of 1986 before the High Court of Sindh at Hyderabad. As it came to transpire, the said Mst. Hajran Begum herself expired during the pendency of the above F.R.A. And C.M.A. 67 of 1998 was preferred, citing a number of persons as the legal representatives of the lady out of whom tenancy on the basis of possession was claimed by Mst. Shamsun Nisa, the aforesaid sister of the deceased lady and Muhammad Rafique, their brother. This C.M.A. Was ordered to be heard along with the main F.R.A. And each came up for hearing before a learned Judge in Chambers, on 19-2- 1999, who dismissed the F.R.A. On the sole ground that neither of the two claimants could qualify as successor tenants, as per definition of the word 'tenant' occurring in section 2, clause (j) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. The learned Judge, however, allowed two months' time to Abdul Ghafoor aforesaid, appellant No,2, before him, to vacate and hand over the premises. The definition clause abovementioned runs thus:-- "Section 2(j) 'tenant' means any person who undertakes or is bound to pay rent as consideration for the possession or occupation of any premises by him or by any other person on his behalf and includes:---
(i) any person who continues to be in possession or occupation of the premises after the termination of his tenancy;
(ii) heirs of the tenant in possession or occupation of the premises after the death of the tenant;"
2. ' It is undisputed in the case that Abdul Ghafoor is the husband of Mst. Shams-un-Nisa, admittedly the sister of Mst. Hajran Begum, appellant No,1 before the High Court. Likewise, there does not appear to be any dispute and regards the fact that Muhammad Rafique was also the brother of the two ladies. Besides, the case of the deceased tenant seems to have been that being a widow and Pardanasheen, at that, the tenanthold premises was being run through such Abdul Ghafoor, brother-in-law of Mst. Hajran Begum. On that basis, apparently, the sub-tenancy was also denied.
3. Nothing, therefore, that follows shall effect merits of such controversy.
4. The High Court in dismissing the plea of impleading Mst. Shams-un-Nisa and her brother Muhammad Rafique came to the conclusion, and obviously correctly, that only such heirs of a deceased tenant would succeed to the tenancy as be found to be "in possession or occupation of the premises after the death of the tenant". Such factual aspect would normally pose little difficulty where the tenant hold is a residential unit. However, problems could arise where the tenancy of a commercial or non-residential premises stands in the name of an individual and such individual, having personally run the business, expires. For the successors to be determined in cases of the genus last mentioned, quite understandably, there can be no physical possession or occupation of any of the heirs of the tenant at the time of the tenant's demise and it is for this reason that the definition clause relates and is specific to the concept of possession or occupation to a point of time "after the death of the tenant". On this question, no apparent dispute of any significance was raised before the High Court and, on principle, Mst. Shams-un-Nisa, sister of the deceased lady and Muhammad Rafique, her above brother, should have been impleaded and the appeal consequently disposed of on merits. This not having been done and the dismissal of the appeal having taken place on a hyper-technical ground, we are inclined, to convert this petition into an appeal and allow it. The appeal having, thus, been allowed, the matter would stands remanded to the High Court which would take up to revive F.R.A. Within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order and dispose of the same on Merits. Meanwhile, an amended memo of appeal would be submitted by and on behalf of the said two legal representatives of the deceased tenant.