REHANA JAMAL and others vs MUHAMMAD ASIM
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an ejectment application filed by the petitioner against the respondent tenant on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide need under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner claimed ownership of the property and served a notice under section 18 of the Ordinance, which the tenant failed to comply with, instead depositing rent in miscellaneous rent cases under another name. The Rent Controller and the High Court both declined the relief of ejectment. The core legal question is whether the tenant committed a default in payment of rent after receiving notice under section 18 and whether the petitioner established personal bona fide need. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the contentions raised regarding default and the erroneous disbelieving of evidence concerning personal need due to alleged suppression of facts. The key principle laid down is that a tenant must tender rent within the statutory period upon receiving notice under section 18, and failure to do so, along with improper deposit of rent, warrants examination regarding default.
- Whether a tenant is bound to tender rent within thirty days of receiving a notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does depositing rent in miscellaneous rent cases under a different name constitute a valid tender of rent to the landlord?
- Can an ejectment application on the ground of personal bona fide need be dismissed solely on the ground of suppression of material facts regarding other properties?
- Section 18, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner, claiming to have become absolute owner of property situated on Plot No,SE-3, Block G, North Nazimabad, Karachi served a notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, dated 19-1-1992 on the respondent, who was her tenant in Shops Nos.104 and 105, claiming rent from January, 1992. The respondent, however, informed the petitioner through his Advocate's letter that he had started depositing rent in M.R.C. Nos.216 of 1992 and 217 of 1992. Subsequently, ejectment application was filed by the petitioner in May 1992 seeking the respondent's ejectment from the demised premises on account of non-payment of rent as well as personal need of the petitioner. The relief was, however, declined by the Rent Controller and the rent appeal filed by the petitioner before the High Court also failed.
2. Contention of Mr. Haider Ali Pirzada learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, is that, the respondent was bound under the law to tender rent due from him within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice under section 18 which admittedly was not done by the respondent and the rent had also been deposited from July, 1992 in the said miscellaneous rent cases and that also in the name of one Gulzar and not in the name of the petitioner and consequently, the learned Judge in the High Court was clearly in error while holding that the respondent was not liable to be ejected on the ground of default. The learned Judge in the High Court, according to the learned counsel, was also in error while holding that the respondent was not liable to be evicted on the ground of personal bona fide need in presence of overwhelming evidence produced on the point by the petitioner, indicating that the premises in question were required by the petitioner's husband to establish his independent business of readymade garments. However, such evidence was disbelieved on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed material facts in regard to other properties owned by her.
3. Leave to appeal is granted to, inter alia, consider the said contentions.