Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 199---Maintainability of constitutional petition---Scope---Interlocutory order passed by Rent Controller---Petitioner challenged the dismissal of application under O.XII, R.6, C.P.C. seeking judgment on admission in pending eviction proceedings---Held, that the impugned order was not final and did not cause any tangible or irreparable injury to petitioner---Constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 may only be invoked where no adequate alternate remedy is available and there exists a grave, imminent or substantial threat to personal or property rights---Challenge to an interlocutory, procedural order without finality or decisive consequence held not maintainable under constitutional jurisdiction. ----Cited Cases: • Muhammad Saeed v. Mst. Sirat Fatima, PLD 1978 Lah. 1459 • Mohammad Tariq v. Safdar Hussain, 2016 MLD 67 Lah. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O.XII, R.6---Judgment on admissions---Nature of admission---Admission must be clear, unambiguous, categorical and made in the pleadings---Held, that admission made by attorney of respondents during cross-examination does not fall within scope of O.XII, R.6, C.P.C.---Such oral statement in evidence, in absence of any formal admission in pleadings, cannot be treated as binding admission for purposes of judgment on admission---Application rightly dismissed by Rent Controller. ----Cited Case: • Divisional Superintendent Postal Services Faisalabad v. Khalid Mehmood, 2023 SCMR 354 (c) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001: ----S. 17---Eviction petition---Application of CPC---Scope---CPC provisions not applicable to rent proceedings stricto sensu---However, Rent Controllers may adopt equitable principles consistent with CPC where appropriate---Application under O.XII, R.6, C.P.C., not maintainable in eviction proceedings absent a formal and categorical admission in pleadings. ----Cited Cases: • Ayub Khan v. Fazal Haq, PLD 1976 SC 422 • Bambina Ltd. v. Selmor Intl. Ltd., PLD 1983 SC 155 ----Disposition: Writ petition dismissed in limine---Impugned order found legal, non-final, and incapable of causing prejudice to petitioner.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Scope---Concurrent orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Court closing petitioner’s right to produce evidence for repeated non-compliance---Held, that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent lawful procedural orders where adequate opportunity was granted and the petitioner failed to comply---Mere presence of attorney on date fixed, without filing affidavit or producing evidence, held insufficient to establish readiness---Petition dismissed, being devoid of merit. (b) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001: ----S. 17---Eviction proceedings---Failure to produce evidence---Petitioner was granted multiple adjournments and warned explicitly of consequences for non-compliance---Rent Controller initially imposed cost; Appellate Court allowed appeal and gave final opportunity to produce evidence on specific date, failing which Rent Controller was permitted to proceed in accordance with law---Petitioner again failed to produce evidence or file affidavit of witness---Held, that direction of Appellate Court was binding, and Rent Controller lawfully exercised discretion in closing right of evidence---No procedural irregularity or denial of fair opportunity established. ----Cited Case: • Moon Enterpriser CNG Station v. SNGPL, 2020 SCMR 300 (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O.XVII, R.3---Repeated adjournments---Interpretation---Scope of "last opportunity"---Supreme Court jurisprudence clarifies that adjournment granted without objection and without clear warning may not amount to "last opportunity" under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.---However, in present case, Rent Controller repeatedly granted adjournments, issued explicit warnings, and imposed costs prior to passing final order---Final direction by Appellate Court to record evidence on fixed date treated as conclusive and binding---Petitioner’s reliance on earlier case law held distinguishable. ----Cited Cases (distinguished): • Syed Tahir Hussain Mehmoodi v. Agha Syed Liaqat Ali, 2014 SCMR 637 • Ghulam Rasool v. Rai Ghulam Mustafa, 1993 SCMR 2026 • Muhammad Umer v. Muhammad Qasim, 1991 SCMR 1232 • Mst. Imtiaz Begum v. Mst. Sultan Jan, 2008 SCMR 1259 ----Disposition: Petition dismissed---Orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Court upheld as legal and within jurisdiction---No procedural illegality or miscarriage of justice found.

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ----S. 13—Eviction petition—Landlord-tenant relationship—Proof of ownership and default—Petitioner/landlord sought eviction of his brother under oral tenancy—Eviction dismissed by Rent Controller and High Court relying on witness (petitioner’s mother) allegedly acting as landlady—Held, petitioner’s ownership was never disputed—Mother acted merely as agent collecting rent while petitioner resided abroad—Unrebutted testimonies of AW-1 to AW-3, due to respondent’s struck off right of cross-examination, clearly established tenancy and default—Finding of no landlord-tenant relationship by lower courts was a result of misreading evidence—Eviction rightly granted by appellate court. Cited Case: • Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1973 SC 236 (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ----Principles of cross-examination—Struck-off right—Effect—Respondent’s failure to cross-examine petitioner’s witnesses after right was struck off—Held, unrebutted evidence stands proved—Lower courts erred in giving weight to speculative interpretations of testimony without allowing challenge—Such uncontested deposition must be deemed established in law. (c) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 23 & 24—Right to property—Judicial delays and landlord’s rights—Held, prolonged litigation in landlord-tenant disputes undermines constitutionally protected property rights—Eviction petition filed in 2018 lingered until 2025—Summary nature of rent proceedings mandates expeditious disposal—Courts directed to ensure judicial economy to prevent erosion of ownership rights through systemic delay. **(d) Constitutional Law— ----Art. 10-A & Art. 37(d)—Expeditious justice—Need for judicial reform—Held, delay in rent adjudication reflects larger institutional inefficiencies—Court stressed need for systemic case management reforms, especially at district judiciary level—Artificial Intelligence (AI) integration proposed as a facilitative tool to enhance efficiency without compromising judicial discretion or fairness. (e) Artificial Intelligence in Judicial System ----Judicial innovation—Scope and boundaries—Court examined role of AI in case management, legal research, drafting, and decision-support—Held, AI must only serve as an assistive tool, not a substitute for human judicial reasoning—Use of platforms like Judge-GPT endorsed with caution and oversight—Judges must retain final responsibility, ensuring decisions remain human-centric and ethically sound. Cited Cases / Materials: • UNESCO Global Toolkit on AI and Rule of Law (2023) • Council of Europe Ethical Charter on AI in Judiciary (2018) • EU AI Act (2024) (f) Judicial Ethics and AI ----Judging with AI—Safeguards—Court warned against over-reliance on generative AI tools without verification—Cautioned against “automation bias,” hallucinated case citations, and opacity—Highlighted global guidelines (UK, Canada, Singapore) on ethical AI use in courts—Stressed continued need for human empathy, discretion, and legitimacy in adjudication. (g) Mediation and ADR in the Age of AI ----Human role in conflict resolution—Court recognized growing role of AI in automating legal processes but emphasized that mediation and ADR remain fundamentally human activities—Empathy, emotional intelligence, and trust-building are beyond current capabilities of AI—Recommended young lawyers focus on ADR to adapt to changing legal ecosystem. (h) Institutional Recommendations ----National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee—Directions—Court directed that guidelines be framed by the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee and the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan to regulate AI usage in judiciary—Guidelines must ensure AI remains subordinate to human adjudication and upholds public trust. ---- Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed—Impugned judgment of Lahore High Court set aside—Judgment of appellate court restored—Respondent No.1 directed to vacate the premises within two months—Court emphasized need for judicial reforms including controlled integration of AI and stronger institutional mechanisms for expeditious disposal of rent cases.

Summary: (a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15-A---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 181---Restoration of possession---Limitation---Principle of laches---Applicability---Grievance of appellant/tenant was that after seeking her ejectment from the premises on basis of personal need, the respondent/landlord did not utilize it for his bona fide personal need---Rent Controller allowed the application of appellant/tenant and ordered to restore possession to her but Lower Appellate Court and High Court declined to interfere in the ejectment order---Validity---Tenant cannot be given an unlimited period of time to apply under section 15-A of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Period of one year cannot be construed as a period of limitation for tenant to apply but such right cannot be extended indefinitely at the leisure of tenant---Such application should be preferred within a reasonable period of time and it is for Rent Controller to decide whether the application is hit by laches rather than applying limitation period as provided under residuary Article 181 of First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908---Supreme Court directed to restore possession of premises to appellant/tenant and set aside the orders passed by High Court and Lower Appellate Court---Appeal was allowed. Words and Phrases (West Publishing Co.) Vol. 18A, (Permanent Edition, Pages 84-85); Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, John S. James, (Volume 2, page 1172); Law Terms and Phrases (Judicially Interpreted, Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan Mokal) Page 416; Venkataramaiya's Law Lexicon and Legal Maxims [2nd Edition, Page 942 (1986)]; Oxford. Dictionary of Law [Elizabeth A. martin 2022 Ed.], Page 328; Merriam Webster. Merriam Webster. [https://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/good%20faith]; Legal Information Institute [Cornell Law School] [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good faith]; Abdul Ghaffar and others v. Mst. Mumtaz PLD 1976 SC 572; Ali Muhammad and another v. Fazal Hussain and others 1983 SCMR 1239; Allah Dino v. Muhammad Shah 2001 SCMR 286; The Canara Bank Ltd. v. The Warden Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1935 Bombay 35; Ali Muhammad and another v. Fazal Hussain and others 1983 SCMR 1239; Collector of Customs (Appraisement) v. Messrs Saleem Adaya, Karachi PLD 1999 Karachi 76; Haji Muhammad Ashraf v. The State and 3 others 1999 MLD 330; Haji Hussain Haji Dawood through LRs and others v. M.Y. Kherati 2002 SCMR 343; Abdul Ghaffar v Mumtaz PLD 1982 SC 88; Muhammad Nazir v. Saeed Subhani 2002 SCMR 1540; Rahim Jan v. Securities Exchange Commission of Pakistan 2002 SCMR 1303; The Rule of Law. (2010 Edition); Dr. Mobashir Hassan and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2010 SC 265; Baz Muhammad Kakar v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 923; Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. v. Mrs. Nasreen Irshad 85 others 1989 SCMR 1892 and Abdus Sattar Molla v. Crown PLD 1958 FC 145 ref. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ----General and special law---Scope---Specific or detailed provisions of a legal instrument should prevail over more general or conflicting provisions---When provision of a general law and special law addresses same issue or matter, the general law is impliedly repealed to the extent that the special law applies---In determining whether a statute is special or general, the focal point of consideration should principally and fundamentally be the subject matter---In the exigency of deciphering the Legislative intent or in case of conflict, the rule of harmonious construction can be adopted to interpret both co-existing provisions in a manner that gives effect to both without rendering either ineffectual or out of order. (c) Maxim--- ----Fiat justitia ruat caelum---Meaning---Let justice be done though heavens fall. (d) Maxim--- ----Ex debito justitiae---Meaning---Doctrine of ex debito justitiae refers to remedies to which a person is entitled to as of right, as opposed to a remedy which is discretionary---Such maxim applies to remedies that a Court is bound to give when they are claimed, as distinct from those that it has discretion to grant, where it is the foremost duty of Court to do complete justice. (e) Administration of justice--- ----Continuing wrong, doctrine of---Scope---If law is violated, the wrongdoer is continuously liable for penalty envisioned under law---Quintessence of continuing wrong is an act which triggers a continuing source of injury but the Courts should not be fervent or zealous to hold continuing wrong or default unless the language of statute or its provision clearly expresses such intention of legislature, or the nature of such injury is considered continuing, or it is based on a recurring cause of action. (f) Maxim--- ----Expressio unius est exlusio alterius---Connotation---Expressio unius est exlusio alterius denotes that to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of the other or of the alternative, keeping in mind that if a law or contract explicitly mentions one thing it is assumed that other things are not included. (g) Maxim--- ----Ex visceribus actus----Connotation---Phrase ex visceribus actus deciphers the principle that every section/clause of a statute should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses of the Act, so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute or series of statutes relating to the subject matter. (h) Maxim--- ----Ut res magis valeat quam pereat---Connotation---Principle of giving effect to the matter rather than having it fail. Appellant in person. Badar Alam, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Kashif Badar, Advocate for Respondents Nos. 1-3. Iftikhar Javed Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court Amicus Curiae. Date of hearing: 24th December, 2024.

Summary: (a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (SRPO) ----S. 15-A—Restoration of possession—Personal use—Failure to occupy premises within one year—Effect—Standard of landlord’s conduct—Scope of penalty and tenant's right Where a landlord secures possession under S.15(2)(vii) SRPO for personal bona fide use but fails to occupy the premises within one year, S.15-A becomes operative—In the present case, landlord obtained possession on grounds of personal need, but instead of using the premises personally, inducted an employee and his family—Landlord’s plea of unfit condition due to tenant’s damage was unsupported by repair evidence—Employee's occupation was held not equivalent to personal use—Held, under S.15-A, such conduct constitutes misuse triggering both penal consequences and tenant’s right to restoration—Application by tenant within a reasonable time after one year satisfies the requirement; limitation under Art. 181 of the Limitation Act does not apply—Doctrine of laches governs timeliness—Restoration of possession directed. (b) Limitation Act, 1908 ----S. 29(2), Art. 181—Application under special tenancy law—Applicability of general limitation—Scope—SRPO as special law Held, SRPO is a special law, and its internal provisions govern limitation—General limitation under Art. 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, does not apply—Tenant’s application for restoration under S.15-A is not barred if filed within a reasonable period—Determination of laches is to be made by Rent Controller based on facts—Tenant’s effort to seek direction from District Judge within time was sufficient to rebut allegation of delay—Courts below erred in mechanically applying limitation principles without due regard to special law framework. Cited Cases: • Abdul Ghaffar v. Mst. Mumtaz PLD 1976 SC 572 • Ali Muhammad v. Fazal Hussain 1983 SCMR 1239 • Allah Dino v. Muhammad Shah 2001 SCMR 286 • Muhammad Nazir v. Saeed Subhani 2002 SCMR 1540 • Rahim Jan v. SECP 2002 SCMR 1303 • Dr. Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2010 SC 265 • Baz Muhammad Kakar v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 923 (c) Interpretation of Statutes ----Principles—Penal statutes—Special law vs. general law—Purposeful interpretation—Ejusdem generis—Expressio unius est exclusio alterius Court emphasized that S.15-A SRPO must be construed in its intended penal and remedial framework—Literal interpretation rejected in favour of purposive construction to give effect to legislative intent—Reliance placed on principles such as ut res magis valeat quam pereat, generalia specialibus non derogant, and ex visceribus actus—Personal need of landlord cannot be diluted by attributing occupation to servants or third parties—Law must be enforced to prevent false eviction on mala fide grounds—Judiciary’s role is to ensure remedial provisions remain effective and not merely symbolic. (d) Landlord & Tenant ----Personal bona fide need—Definition—Good faith—Requirement of actual use—Employee’s occupation not valid substitute Held, "personal use" under S.2(g) SRPO means occupation by landlord, spouse, or children—Standard of “good faith” requires honest and diligent intention to occupy—Merely placing employee in premises violates the intent—Reliance on Section 182 of the Contract Act, 1872 (agent definition) was misplaced—Court held that landlord’s actions were not in good faith and inconsistent with the purpose of eviction. Disposition: Appeal allowed—Judgments of Appellate Court and High Court set aside—Order of Rent Controller restoring possession to tenant reinstated for execution—Directions issued to inspect premises under S.20 SRPO for verification before execution.

Summary: (Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 14.05.2024, passed in Writ Petition No. 17731 of 2024). (a) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)--- ----S. 15---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10A---Rent proceedings---Due process and fair trial---Scope---Rent Tribunal adjudicates upon civil rights and obligations in eviction proceedings, and parties thereto are entitled to a fair trial and due process under Article 10A of the Constitution. Khadim Mohy-Ud-Din v. Rehmat Ali Nagra PLD 1965 SC 459 and Shahid Raza v. Fauzia Shaheen 2003 MLD 1215 rel. (b) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)--- ----Ss. 15 & 17---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17 & 79---Ejectment of tenant---Document---Proof---Provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Applicability---Rent Tribunal dismissed ejectment application for failure of landlord to prove rent deed according to the provisions of Articles 17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Lower Appellate Court allowed appeal filed by landlord and passed eviction order but High Court maintained the order of Rent Tribunal---Validity---Distinction must be drawn between invoking and applying general principles of law of evidence codified in Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and any special provisions enacted therein---While adjudicating upon civil rights and obligations in eviction proceedings, Rent Tribunal should invoke and apply only those general principles of law of evidence codified in Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 that are necessary to give effect to fundamental rights of parties under Article 10A of the Constitution---Rent Tribunal need not apply all principles or any special provisions enacted in Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Such distinction is rooted in summary nature of rent proceedings, which are designed to resolve disputes expeditiously and without procedural formalities of regular civil trials---General principles of evidence, such as burden of proof, relevance of evidence, and right to cross-examine, must nevertheless apply to safeguard Constitutional right to a fair trial---Lower Appellate Court rightly accepted eviction petition filed by landlord---Rent Tribunal legally erred in law by dismissing the petition, and High Court similarly erred in restoring its decision---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by High Court and upheld that of Lower Appellate Court, whereby respondent/tenant was evicted from the premises---Appeal was allowed. Khadim Mohy-Ud-Din v. Rehmat Ali Nagra PLD 1965 SC 459 and Shahid Raza v. Fauzia Shaheen 2003 MLD 1215; Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique PLD 2007 SC 45; Ahmad Ali v. Nasar-Ud-Din PLD 2009 SC 453; Jehangir Rustom v. State Bank of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1296 and F.K. Irani and Co. v. Begum Feroze 1996 SCMR 1178 rel. (c) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)--- ----S. 15---Landlord and tenant---Proof---In absence of any evidence to the contrary, owner of a property, by virtue of his title, is presumed to be landlord---Person in possession is presumed to be tenant of that property. Ch. Muhammad Masood Jahangir, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Malik Ijaz Hussain Gorcha, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1 (through video link, Lahore Registry). Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (Special Judge (Rent) and Additional District Judge) Pro forma Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th February, 2025.

Summary: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Limited scope of constitutional jurisdiction in rent matters---Ejectment application based on bona fide personal need of landlord / landlady---Eviction ordered by Rent Controller---Scope---Requirement for eviction under personal use---Establishing landlord's need is genuine and in good faith---Unshaken and consistent testimony of landlord sufficient to prove bona fide need---Payment of goodwill ("Pagri") not recognized as a defense under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---The petitioner (tenant) filed a constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging concurrent findings of two courts which ordered eviction on the ground of personal bona fide need---Respondent No. 1 (land lady) filed ejectment application under S. 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for eviction of the petitioner from shop No. 1 claiming personal bona fide need for the use of her son---The petitioner claimed the eviction was based on mala fide intention and lacked genuine bona fide need---The key legal issue was whether Respondent No. 1 (land lady) required the premises for the bona fide personal use of her son---The Rent Controller allowed the eviction directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within 60 day---Petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed and aggrieved by the concurrent judgments, filed the present constitutional petition---Held: Section 15 of the Ordinance, 1979 empowered a landlord / landlady to seek eviction of tenant on the grounds mentioned therein including the ground of personal bona fide need for his / her own occupation or use or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children---The only requirement in this provision for landlord / landlady was to show that he / she required the premises in good faith---The respondent No. 3 (land lady) in her rent application had specifically stated that the demised premises was required by her for the use and occupation of her son who also stepped in witness box and deposed in the same line as stated and deposed by his mother---If the statement of landlord / landlady came on oath and remained consistent with application for ejectment and was not shaken in cross-examination, it was sufficient to prove that requirement of landlord / landlady was bona fide---As to the contention that during subsistence of tenancy, the petitioner had paid huge amount towards goodwill ("Pagri") in respect of the rented shop, the term goodwill ("Pagri") was not recognized by Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, however, the superior Courts had equalized it with term "Pagri"---The plea of a tenant that he paid goodwill ("Pagri") for premises, in no manner could succeed as a ground of defence when eviction of tenant was being sought by the landlord, however, if for the sake of arguments it was presumed that goodwill ("Pagri") amount was paid in respect of demised shop, even then it would not have debarred the respondent No. 1 from seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal bona fide need or any other ground as defined in Sec. 15 of the Ordinance---Under constitutional jurisdiction, the High Court avoided giving contrary findings until and unless the same were proved to be perverse and contrary to record---Besides, the powers of the High Court in rent matters under its constitutional jurisdiction were limited and confined only to ascertain whether the Courts below had flouted the statute or failed to follow the law relating thereto---In the case in hand, neither there was any jurisdictional error nor any perversity, illegality and infirmity in the order / judgment impugned---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Akhtar Qureshi v. Nisar Ahmed 2000 SCMR 1292 and Shakeel Ahmed and another v. Muhammad Tariq Farogh and others 2010 SCMR 1925 rel. Zahid Hussain for Petitioner. Ms. Erum for Respondent No. 1. Date of hearing: 20th February, 2025.

Summary: (a) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)--- ----Ss. 15 & 16---Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, denial of---Both the parties claiming ownership of subject property---Record revealed that the dispute between the parties was with regard to purchase of one marla land yet it was not disputed by the parties that one marla land was purchased by them from original owner through two different documents on the basis of which the parties claimed themselves to be the owners respectively---A registered sale deed, with accurate metes and bounds, when executed with due compliance of law, proper stamp duty, payment and valid title transfer from a legally competent seller, confers a valid and enforceable right upon the purchaser---Upon considering the evidence, the respondent acquired a better title through a duly executed registered sale deed, free from legal infirmities and the petitioner's claim, based on a weak and legally flawed mutation, did not override the respondent's valid ownership rights---Petitioner failed to bring on record any tangible evidence substantiating the non-existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties---Rent Tribunal established under S. 16 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 ('the Act 2009'), can only exercise the jurisdiction with regard to rented premises if there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties---Both the judgments were well-reasoned having been passed after taking into consideration every aspect of the case---Constitutional petition, being meritless, was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009), S. 15---Eviction of tenant---Concurrent findings---Invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---The question relating to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant inter se parties was undoubtedly a question of fact which had been concurrently resolved by both the courts below in favour of respondent---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be resorted merely on the ground that from the available material some other view is possible---There are concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below, which apparently did not suffer from any legal infirmity---High Court is also not ordinarily inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, particularly when they are not shown to be contrary to record or arbitrary or whimsical---In the present case, apart from the bald assertions, no specific instance was brought to the notice of the Court that might be regarded as a case of misreading or non-reading of material evidence, having direct and decisive bearing on the issues---Both the Courts exercised the jurisdiction vested in them, without violating any principles governing the assessment and appraisal of evidence---Both the judgments were well-reasoned having been passed after taking into consideration every aspect of the case---Constitutional petition, being meritless, was dismissed, in circumstances. Mian Umar Ikram-ul-Haque v. Dr. Shahida Hasnain and another 2016 SCMR 2186 and Noor-un-Nisa and others v. United Bank Limited through Authorized Officers and 2 others PLD 2021 Lah. 90 ref. Hassan Raza Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Shahid Latif Hashmi for Respondent No. 3. Date of hearing: 10th February, 2025.

Summary: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----Ss. 10 & 15(2)(ii)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Ejectment of tenant---Default in payment of rent and bona fide personal need---Ejectment application filed by the landlord/respondent was allowed by the Rent Controller, which was upheld by the Appellate Court---Validity---Petitioner/Tenant in his evidence had admitted that he had sent the rent for four months, that is, July, August, September and October, 2014, through Money Order in the month of October, 2014 and that as per agreement, he was bound to pay monthly rent in advance latest by 5thof each calendar month---Previous conduct of the petitioner showed that he had defaulted in payment of rent, as he cleared the rent subsequently in installments---Petitioner admitted in his testimony that as per the agreement he had to pay the rent by 5thof each month, thus, rent of July 2014 should have been paid within 15 (fifteen) days, which admittedly was not done--It was not necessary that there should be a written tenancy agreement, but the standard practice between a landlord and tenant to pay and receive the rentals, which also constituted an agreement, should be adhered to while paying rent---If the acceptable practice between the landlord and tenant was that rent was to be paid by 5thof each month, then Sub-S. 2 (ii) of S. 15 would be applicable, that is, rent should be paid within fifteen days when the rent was due---Non-payment of rent carried a penal consequence, thus, evidence given by the parties must be construed strictly and in the event of a probable doubt, it must be resolved in favour of tenant rather than landlord---Plaintiff cannot get benefit from the weaknesses of the defendant's evidence alone, rather plaintiff has to prove his case on its own strength---Jurisdiction was exercised correctly by Courts below---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Hirjibhai Behrana Dar-e-Meher through Attorney v. Messrs Bombay Steel Works, Partnership Firm, through Partner 2001 SCMR 1888; Hakim Ali v. Muhammad Salim and another 1992 SCMR 46; Sher Afgan v. Shaikh Anjum Iqbal 1997 MLD 98; Mushtaq-ul-Aarifin and others v.Mumtaz Muhammad and others 2022 SCMR 55; Sh. Fateh Muhammad v. Muhammad Adil and others PLD 2007 SC 460; Ijaz Ahmed Khan v. Jahanzeb Khan and others 2016 CLC Note 128; Nasir Akhtar v. Sher Alam 2019 YLR 1967; Abdul Rehman and others v. Ghulam Fatima and others 2017 YLR 2276; Ilyas Ahmed v. Muhammad Munir and 10 others PLD 2012 Sindh 92; Sir E.H. Jaffar and Sons Ltd. v. Sultan Karam Ali and others 1995 SCMR 330 and Naeem Noor Muhammad alias Naeem Cyclwala's 2017 CLC 625 distinguished. Allah Din v. Habib PLD 1982 SC 465; Tajammal Hussain Shah v. Mst.Taj Aslam 1989 CLC 662; Abdul Rasheed v. Hanifur Rahman 1994 MLD 955; Muhammad Subhan and another v. Mst. Bilquis Begum through Legal Heirs and 3 others 1994 SCMR 1507; Abdul Mateen v. Muhammad Hussain (Late) 1997 CLC 216; Haji Qasim (Deceased) through L.Rs v. Syed Rahim Shah 1999 MLD 1014; Ghulam Nabi and another v. T. Ismail 2000 MLD 186; Inam Ahmed and another v. Hakimuddin and another 2000 CLC 1140; Muhammad Yakoob v. Mst. Zaibunnisa and 2 others 2009 CLC 177; Shafiq-ud-Din and others v. Mst. Shahida Ghazala and others 2000 CLC Note 29; Nizar Noor and others v. Ameer Ali and others and 2020 CLC 254 Hakim Ali v. Muhammad Salim and aother 1992 SCMR 46 ref. Zayyad Khan Abbasi and Ch. Tariq Yousuf for Petitioner. Mahmooda Suleman and Muhammad Rizwan Naich for Respondent No. 1. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Date of hearing: 25th January, 2025. Order Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, J .--- Through this Petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the Judgments dated 05.03.2020 and 16.11.2019 passed by the learned Appellate Court and Rent Controller, deciding the Eviction Application of Respondent No.1, directing the Petitioner to vacate the Premises-Shop No.1, at Plot No.603, Main Road, PIB Colony, Karachi the Demised Premises, on the ground of committing default in payment of rent. 2. Messrs Zayyad Khan Abbasi and Ch. Tariq Yousuf, Advocates for the Petitioner have argued the matter at length and stated that the concurrent findings result of misreading of evidence and misinterpretation of the provisions of the relevant Law, viz. the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979-the Rent Law; in particular, Sections 10 and 15 [2] (ii), inter alia, concerning the time period of sixty days to pay rents, if, there is no tenancy agreement; stated that the Rent Application is filed with mala fide intention and that is why personal bona fide need of Respondent No.l was discarded. The Legal Team of Petitioner has cited the following Case Law to augment their arguments. i) 2001 SCMR 1888 [Hirjibhai Behrana Dar-e-Meher through Attorney v.Mesars Bombay Steel Works, Partnership Firm, through Partner] ii) 1992 SCMR 46 [Hakim Ali v. Muhammad Salim and another] ii) 1997 MLD 98 [Karachi] [Sher Afgan v. Shaikh Anjum Iqbal] iv) 2022 SCMR 55 [Mushtaq-ul-Aarifin and others v. Mumtaz Muhammad and others] v) PLD 2007 SC 460 [Sh. Fateh Muhammad v. Muhammad Adil and others] vi) 2016 CLC Note 128 [Ijaz Ahmed Khan v. Jahanzeb Khan and others] vii) 2019 YLR 1967 [Nasir Akhtar v. Sher Alam) viii) 2017 YLR 2276 [Lahore] [Abdul Rehman and others v. Ghulam Fatima and others] ix) PLD 2012 Sindh 92 [Ilyas Ahmed v. Muhammad Munir and 10 others] (x) 1995 SCMR 330 1 [Sir E.H. Jaffar and Sons Ltd. v. Sultan Karam Ali and others] xi) 2017 CLC 625 [Sindh) [Naeem Noor Muhammad alias Naeem Cyehwala) 3. The above arguments are refuted by M/s. Mahmooda Suleman and Muhammad Rizwan Naich, learned Advocates for Respondent No.1 (Landlord). They stated that findings of both the Fora are based on a proper appraisal of evidence, which cannot be set-aside in writ jurisdiction. The Legal Team of Respondent No.1 has cited the following Case Law. i) PLD 1982 SC 465 [Allah Din v. Habib] ii) 1989 CLC 662 [Karachil [Tajammal Hussain Shah v. Mst. Taj Aslam] iii) 1994 MLD 955 (Karachi) [Abdul Rasheed v. Hanifur Rahman] iv) 1994 SCMR 1507 (2) [Muhammad Subhan and another v. Mst. Bilquis Begum through Legal Heirs and 3 others] (v) 1997 CLC 216 [Karachi] [Abdul Mateen v. Muhammad Hussain (late)] vi) 1999 MLD 1014 [Haji Qasim (Deceased) through L.Rs v. Syed Rahim Shah) vii) 2000 MLD 186 [Ghulam Nabi and another v. T. Ismail] viii) 2000 CLC 1140 [Karachi] [Inam Ahmed and another v. Hakimuddin and another] ix) 2009 CLC 177 [Karachi] [Muhammad Yakoob v. Mst. Z?ibunnisa and 2 others] x) 2020 CLC Note 29 [Shafiq-ud-Din and others v. Mst. Shahida Ghazala and others] xi) 2020 CLC 254 [Sindh] [Nizar Noor and others v. Ameer Ali and others] xii) 1992 SCMR 46 [Hakim Ali v. Muhammad Salim and another] 4. Arguments heard and Record perused. 5. The above argument of the Petitioner's Legal Team has been considered by the learned Rent Controller in the Impugned Order and he disagreed with the same, on the basis of the evidence adduced by both the Petitioner and Respondent. 6. Interestingly, the Petitioner was given further opportunity to lead the evidence at the Appellate stage, inter alia, to produce the Postal Receipt of the Money Order through which he sent the rents of the four months, from July, 2014 onwards; that is, the period in which the Petitioner is allegedly committed default. 7. The Petitioner in his evidence has admitted that he had sent the rent for four months, that is, July, August, September and October, 2014, through Money Order in the month of October, 2014; admitted that as per agreement, he "was bound to pay monthly rent in advance latest by 5th of each calendar month". 8. It has come on record that earlier also, the Petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent from 1st July 2005 till 31 December 2011, which was paid/cleared subsequently in installments; although, this fact is not the subject dispute of the present proceeding, but shows the conduct of the Petitioner. 9. The argument of Petitioner's Counsel, that since no written agreement exists, therefore, in terms of the above provisions of the Rent Law, the monthly rent of July 2014 and following three months was correctly paid in the month of October and no default is committed, is a misconceived one, and aptly discussed in the impugned Decisions, inter alia, that since it is admitted by the Petitioner in his testimony] that as per the agreement he had to pay the rent by 5th of each month, therefore, rent of July 2014 should have been paid within 15 (fifteen) days, which admittedly was not done. It is further clarified that it is not necessary that there should be a written Tenancy Agreement, but the standard practice between a Landlord and Tenant to pay and receive the rentals also constitute an agreement, should be adhered to while paying rents. If the acceptable practice between the Landlord and Tenant is that rent is paid by 5th of each month, then Subsection 2 (ii) of Section 15 will be applicable, that is, rent should be paid within fifteen days when the rent is due. 10. The Case Law cited by the Petitioner does not need an elaborate discussion in view of the above undisputed factual aspect of the case, because the Cited Decisions are ?n respect of the interpretation of second part of Subsection 2 (ii) of Section 15 [ibid), that is, payment of rent within sixty days when it has fallen due; non-payment of rent carries a penal consequence, thus, evidence given by the Parties must be construed strictly and in the event of a probable doubt, it must be resolved in favour of tenant rather than Landlord; reiterating the established Rule, that Plaintiff cannot get benefit from the weaknesses of the Defendant's evidence alone, rather Plaintiff has to prove his case on its own strength. 11. Both the Impugned Judgments are handed down after proper appreciation of the evidence and relevant provisions of the Rent Law; hence, the jurisdiction is exercised correctly. Constitution Petition is dismissed. Since, the demised Premises is commercial, therefore, 30 (thirty) days' time is granted to the Petitioner, for handing over physical, peaceful and vacant possession to the Respondent; or, after the lapse of 30 (thirty) days, the learned Rent Controller will issue Writ of Possession without any further Notice. 12. There will be no order as to costs. SA/Z-8/Sindh Petition dismissed.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----S. 8---Determination of rent for period of dispossession---Scope of remand by President of Pakistan---Complainant (widow) sought recovery of rent for period during which she and her children were deprived of their share in residential house at E-7, Islamabad---Case remanded by Hon’ble President to Ombudsperson to determine market rent and duration of dispossession—Evidence, including plaint in civil proceedings (filed 22-02-2016), established that dispossession commenced in September 2015 and possession was restored on 06-07-2021—Held, under S.8 of the Act, the Ombudsperson is empowered to direct payment of market rental value for entire duration of unlawful deprivation—Respondents found jointly liable for rent. (b) Civil litigation history---Effect of collusion---Earlier suit filed by Respondent No.1 for declaration and possession dismissed by civil court on 29-02-2015 for failure to prove alleged exchange of property—Record showed Respondent No.2 admitted claim of Respondent No.1 in that suit, evidencing collusion to dispossess Complainant—Respondent No.2, therefore, estopped from denying involvement or liability for rent. (c) Calculation of rent---Principles---Market rental value assessed at Rs.360,000 per annum in 2021 with 10% annual reduction applied retrospectively to October 2015—Husband of Complainant held 1/3rd share in property; Complainant entitled to 1/8th of entire estate—Total rent corresponding to husband’s share calculated at approx. Rs.5.5 million; Complainant’s personal share assessed at Rs.700,000---Both Respondents held jointly and severally liable to pay said amount within one month. (d) Administrative law---Remand compliance---Where superior authority remands matter for specific determination, forum must confine itself to scope of remand—Directions of Hon’ble President of Pakistan (order dated 10-12-2024) duly complied with by recalculating rent and duration based on evidence of dispossession. (e) Disposition— Complaint partly allowed---Dispossession determined to have commenced in September 2015 and ended on 06-07-2021---Respondents directed to pay Rs.700,000 to Complainant jointly and severally within one month---In case of default, Complainant entitled to approach forum for enforcement under S.8 of the Act—File consigned.