ALTAF AHMED KHAN and anothers vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT and 2 others
This matter arises from petitions directed against a consolidated judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing First Rent Appeals filed by the petitioners. The core legal question concerns whether a prospective purchaser of a property under a mere agreement to sell acquires the status of a landlord entitled to demand rent and seek ejectment of tenants prior to the completion of the sale transaction. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower forums that a prospective purchaser, lacking ownership or a completed transfer, does not establish the relationship of landlord and tenant with the occupants under the relevant statutory provisions, rendering the ejectment application not maintainable. The Court held that a mere agreement to sell does not bind tenants to pay rent to the prospective buyer. The key principle laid down is that the status of a landlord for seeking eviction on grounds of default or reconstruction requires a legally recognized jural relationship of landlord and tenant, which does not subsist merely by virtue of an executory sale agreement.
- Does a prospective purchaser under a sale agreement acquire the status of a landlord entitled to receive rent from tenants?
- Whether an ejectment application filed by a person who is only a prospective purchaser is maintainable without the establishment of the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Are tenants bound to pay rent to a third party who has merely entered into an agreement for the purchase of the demised property?
- Section 18, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J.---These petitions are directed against the consolidated judgment, dated 21-11-2000 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench at Hyderabad, in F.R.As. Nos.69, 70 and 71 of 1998.
2. Brief facts are that petitioner No,2 Haseeb Rasool and his father Choudhary Safdar were owners and landlord of the three premises constructed on Plots Nos.55, 56 and 58, Block No,B, Unit No,6, Shah Latifabad, Hyderabad and they had respectively inducted the respondents as tenants. The respondents were regularly paying rent to petitioner No,2. Petitioner No,1 Altaf Ahmed Khan appeared on the scene and served identical notices on all the respondents stating that he had entered into an agreement for purchase of the suit property and that the respondents being the tenants were required to pay the rent to him. Thereafter, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 filed ejectment application against the respondents seeking their eviction on two grounds, namely, reconstruction of the building and default in payment of the rent. The learned Rent Controller/Second Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad after framing necessary issues and examining the evidence led by the parties dismissed the rent application holding that admittedly there was no transaction of sale of property in between petitioners Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, petitioner No,1 was not owner of the property.
3. Being aggrieved Petitions Nos.1 and 2 filed F.R.As. In the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench Hyderabad, which were also dismissed by a learned Judge in Chambers vide the impugned judgment, dated 21-11-2000. The learned Judge in Chambers observed that the admitted facts are that when the notices were served on the respondents and during the pendency of ejectment proceedings before the Rent Controller, petitioner No,1 was only a prospective purchaser. Thus, the condition provided in section 18 of the Ordinance for acquiring the status of landlord was not fulfilled. It was opined that merely by execution of sale agreement between petitioner No,2 (owner/landlord) and petitioner No,1 (prospective buyer) the respondents were riot bound to pay rent to petitioner No,1 It was further observed by the learned Judge in Chambers that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between petitioner No,1 and the respondents, with the result that the ejectment application filed by petitioner No,1 for all intents and purposes on its own showing was not maintainable and the same was rightly dismissed.
4. We have heard Mr. A. Rahim Kazi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. In view of the finding recorded by the learned Judge in Chambers that petitioner No,1 was only a prospective purchaser and therefore, no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties the other findings recorded are of no consequence.
5. Be that as it may, the petitioners shall be at liberty, if so advised, to file a fresh application on the ground of reconstruction or any other ground subject to the satisfaction of the learned Rent Controller that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties have now been established. It is further observed that if a fresh application of ejectment is moved by the petitioners against the respondents, the same shall be disposed of on merits in accordance with law without prejudice to any finding recorded in the impugned judgment.
6. With the above observations, the petitions are disposed of.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Usman vs Muhammad Yousuf & Others 2025 SHC KHI 2293
- JAVED TASNEEM Versus MAQBOOL AHMED BHATTI 2017 YLRN 68