Summary: (a) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)---- ----S.15---Ejectment petition---Commercial premises---Unregistered lease deed for thirty-three years---Long-term tenancy---Effect---Held, that an unregistered lease deed purporting to create rights in immovable property for a term exceeding one year could not be relied upon for establishing a long-term tenancy---Where the alleged lease deed was unregistered, the tenancy was rightly treated as month-to-month tenancy under the law---Upon valid termination of such tenancy, ejectment petitions were maintainable and could lawfully be accepted. (b) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal---New factual plea before Supreme Court---Alleged partition of property and identity of landlord---Held, that a party cannot be permitted to raise, for the first time at the stage of leave to appeal, a factual controversy requiring determination through evidence---Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Art.185(3) is not intended to reopen factual disputes which were neither pleaded nor adjudicated upon by the courts below---Where no foundational plea challenging the locus standi of the ejectment petitioner on the basis of alleged partition or different landlord was raised before the Rent Controller, no issue was framed and no evidence was led, such plea could not be entertained for the first time before the Supreme Court. Cited Cases: • Pirzada Noor-Ul-Basar v. Mst. Pakistan Bibi and others 2023 SCMR 1072 • WAPDA through Chairman and others v. Alam Sher and others 2023 SCMR 981 • Najaf Iqbal v. Shahzad Rafique 2020 SCMR 1621 • Muhammad Rashid Bhatti v. Director General FIA Headquarters, Islamabad and others 2018 SCMR 1995 • Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Azan and another 2011 SCMR 474 • Rauf Ahmad v. Mst. Walayat Begum PLD 1995 SC 639 (c) Civil Procedure---- ----Remand---Scope and object---Not to be ordered routinely---Held, that remand is a corrective jurisdiction to be exercised carefully where a material issue has remained undecided or where a party has been denied fair opportunity to present its case---Remand cannot be used as a device to prolong litigation or to provide a litigant a second opportunity to fill lacunae in his case---Where Rent Controller framed relevant issues, recorded oral and documentary evidence and returned findings after appraisal of record, and Appellate Court and High Court also examined the matter, remand was not warranted in absence of jurisdictional defect, misreading or non-reading of material evidence. Cited Cases: • Rozi Khan and others v. Nasir and others 1997 SCMR 1849 • Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and another v. Gulbat Khan 1996 SCMR 230 (d) Civil Procedure---- ----Pleadings---Parties bound by pleadings---Evidence beyond pleadings---Held, that parties are bound by their pleadings and no amount of evidence can be looked into in support of a plea not specifically raised---A litigant cannot improve or reconstruct his case at a later stage by introducing facts that were neither pleaded, nor made subject of issue, nor tested through evidence before the competent forum---Pleas regarding acquisition of ownership through sale deeds during pendency of proceedings and extension of demised premises through adjoining portions could not be entertained where such pleas were not part of the original defence before the Rent Controller. Cited Cases: • Hafiz Qari Fateh through L.Rs. v. Ms. Urooj Fatima and others 2024 SCMR 1709 • Muhammad Ghaffar through LRs and others v. Arif Muhammad 2023 SCMR 344 • Zulfiqar and others v. Shahdat Khan PLD 2007 SC 582 • Government of West Pakistan through Collector, Bahawalpur v. Hail Muhammad PLD 1976 SC 469 • Messrs Choudhary Brothers Ltd., Sialkot v. The Jaranwala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaranwala 1968 SCMR 804 • Binyameen and others v. Chaudhry Hakim and another 1996 SCMR 336 • Major (Retd.) Barkat Ali and others v. Qaim Din and others 2006 SCMR 562 (e) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984)---- ----Art.115---Estoppel of tenant---Tenant disputing landlord’s title---Subsequent claim of ownership---Held, that a tenant who entered into possession under a tenancy cannot, during subsistence of tenancy, dispute the landlord’s title as it existed at the inception of tenancy---Doctrine of estoppel under Art.115 bars such denial---If, after expiry of tenancy, tenant sets up an independent title in himself, lawful course is to vacate the premises and pursue appropriate remedies before a competent civil forum---Rent proceedings cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of complex title disputes. Cited Cases: • Nazir Ahmad v. Mst. Sardar Bibi and others 1989 SCMR 913 • Mst. Seema Begum v. Muhammad Ishaq and others PLD 2009 SC 45 • Barkat Masih v. Manzoor Ahmad through L.Rs. 2006 SCMR 1068 • Ghulam Mustafa and others v. Mst. Muhammadi Begum and others 1991 SCMR 432 • Muhammad Nazir v. Saeed Subhani 2002 SCMR 1540 • Waheed Ullah v. Mst. Rehana Nasim and others 2004 SCMR 1568 (f) Transfer of Property / Rent Law---- ----Doctrine of pendente lite---Sale deeds executed during pendency of ejectment proceedings---Effect on rent proceedings---Held, that reliance upon sale deeds executed in 2022 and 2023 could not be used to resist ejectment proceedings instituted in 2018---Rights, if any, acquired pendente lite cannot be employed as a ploy to defeat proceedings lawfully initiated years earlier, particularly where such rights were neither pleaded at inception nor integrated into the original defence before the Rent Controller. (g) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)---- ----S.15---Rent Controller---Jurisdiction---Title dispute---Summary nature of rent proceedings---Held, that rent jurisdiction under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 is summary and specialized in character and is confined to determining the landlord-tenant relationship and statutory grounds of ejectment---Rent Controller cannot adjudicate complex questions of proprietary title---Questions of ownership fall within the exclusive domain of the civil court---Where tenants had already disputed respondents’ title through separate civil proceedings pending before a competent civil court, remand to the Rent Controller for inquiry into title would be misconceived and would merely delay finality of rent proceedings. (h) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)---- ----S.15---Co-ownership dispute---Change in ownership of demised premises---Distinguishable precedents---Held, that precedents relating to change in ownership of the very demised premises through alienation by co-owners were distinguishable where no such alteration in ownership of the demised premises had been established---Alleged purchases relied upon by tenants related to adjoining portions and were never made part of the original defence before the Rent Controller---Precedents apply only where factual foundation is analogous; where facts materially differ, reliance upon such authorities is of no assistance. Cited Cases: • Mst. Sanobar Sultan and others v. Obaidullah Khan and others PLD 2009 SC 71 • Abdul Zahir v. Jaffar Khan 2010 SCMR 189 (i) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.185(3)---Concurrent findings of Rent Controller, Appellate Court and High Court---Interference by Supreme Court---Held, that concurrent findings that tenancy stood established, unregistered lease deed could not create long-term tenancy, plea of extended ownership/acquisition of title was neither pleaded nor proved, and ejectment petitions were maintainable, were based on proper appreciation of record and settled principles of law---No perversity, misreading, non-reading of material evidence or jurisdictional defect was shown---Supreme Court refused interference. Disposition: All connected C.P.L.As. Nos.209, 210, 211, 212, 324 and 325 of 2026 were dismissed; leave to appeal was refused; no order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---- ----Art. 115---Estoppel of tenant---Tenant disputing landlord’s title while retaining possession---Bar---Respondents instituted suit for recovery of produce and ejectment against petitioners before DDO(R)/AAC(R), Peshawar---Petitioners resisted claim and subsequently asserted acquisition of certain ownership rights in part of demised premises---Supreme Court held that where a person enters into possession as tenant, he is estopped from disputing landlord’s title so long as he continues to retain possession under tenancy---Doctrine is founded on public policy, preserves sanctity of contractual relationship and prevents tenant from approbating and reprobating simultaneously. Cited Case: • Mst. Seema Begum v. Muhammad Ishaq and others PLD 2009 SC 45 (b) Landlord and tenant---- ----Tenant claiming ownership/proprietary rights---Obligation to surrender possession first---Supreme Court held that if a tenant disputes proprietary title of landlord or sets up hostile title, he must first vacate and surrender possession and thereafter contest his alleged proprietary rights before competent forum---Law does not permit tenant to retain possession under tenancy while simultaneously denying landlord’s title. Cited Case: • Barkat Masih v. Manzoor Ahmad through LRs 2006 SCMR 1068 (c) Landlord and tenant---- ----Assertion of ownership on basis of agreement to sell---Effect on ejectment proceedings---Mere assertion of ownership or claim based on alleged agreement to sell does not defeat maintainability of ejectment proceedings---Until tenant establishes specific performance or proprietary claim before competent Court, landlord continues to enjoy status of owner/landlord and relationship between parties remains governed by tenancy terms---Tenant cannot resist ejectment merely on basis of alleged sale agreement. Cited Cases: • Mst. Seema Begum v. Muhammad Ishaq and others PLD 2009 SC 45 • Muhammad Nazir v. Saeed Subhani 2002 SCMR 1540 • Waheed Ullah v. Mst. Rehana Nasim and others 2004 SCMR 1568 (d) Ejectment proceedings---- ----Tenant purchasing share in property---Co-ownership plea---Effect on tenancy---Supreme Court held that even if tenant asserts acquisition of ownership rights by purchase of share in property, such assertion by itself does not terminate tenancy or render ejectment proceedings incompetent---Qua demised premises, tenant’s position remains that of tenant unless and until his proprietary claim is established in accordance with law. Cited Cases: • Nazir Ahmad v. Mst. Sardar Bibi and others 1989 SCMR 913 • Ghulam Mustafa and others v. Mst. Muhammadi Begum and others 1991 SCMR 432 (e) Rent / ejectment jurisdiction---- ----Limited jurisdiction of Rent Controller / ejectment forum---Complicated questions of title---Supreme Court reiterated that ejectment forum exercises limited jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate complicated ownership disputes---Where tenant claims to have purchased share or acquired co-ownership, proper remedy is not to resist ejectment proceedings by raising disputed title questions, but to seek partition or appropriate declaration before competent civil forum. (f) Civil remedy---- ----Tenant claiming co-ownership by purchase of share---Proper remedy---Partition suit---Supreme Court held that tenant claiming co-ownership or purchase of share must pursue proprietary remedy by filing civil suit for partition before competent forum---Such claim cannot be used as defence to defeat ejectment proceedings while tenant continues in possession under tenancy. (g) Constitutional jurisdiction---- ----Concurrent findings of revenue/ejectment forums and High Court---No interference by Supreme Court---Trial Court decreed suit for recovery of produce and ejectment; appeal, revision, second revision and constitutional petition were dismissed---Supreme Court held that High Court had correctly construed settled law on tenant’s estoppel and maintainability of ejectment proceedings, and no illegality warranting interference was made out. Disposition: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal was dismissed and leave refused; judgment of Peshawar High Court dated 19.10.2018 maintaining orders of forums below in suit for recovery of produce and ejectment was upheld; connected CMA was disposed of as infructuous.

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)---- ----Ss. 2(c), 2(i) & 13---Ejectment of tenant---Bona fide personal need---Meaning of “landlord”---Attorney / authorised person acting on behalf of landlord---Respondent-landlord filed ejectment application through attorney against tenant in respect of shop situated at Old Bus Stand, GT Road, Haripur, on ground of bona fide personal need for business---Tenant objected that premises were not required by landlord personally but by his attorney, Muhammad Sohail---Supreme Court held that definition of “landlord” under S.2(c) is broad and includes any person entitled to receive rent in respect of building or rented land, whether on his own account or on behalf or for benefit of another person, and also includes trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator---Attorney duly authorised through authority letter/NOC and special power of attorney could institute and pursue ejectment proceedings on behalf of landlord. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)---- ----S. 13(3)(a)---Bona fide personal need---Non-residential building---Requirement for own use or use of children---For non-residential building, scheduled building or rented land, landlord may seek eviction if premises are required in good faith for his own use or for use of any of his children, provided he or such child is not occupying another suitable building/rented land in same urban area for business and has not vacated such premises without sufficient cause after commencement of Ordinance---Supreme Court held that appellate Court and High Court rightly found bona fide personal need established through cogent and reliable evidence. (c) Landlord and tenant---- ----Ejectment through attorney---Delegation of landlord’s powers---Competency to file rent petition---Landlord had entrusted all powers as landlord to Muhammad Sohail through authority letter and special power of attorney---Supreme Court held that any person authorised even to collect rent can be treated as landlord within meaning of Ordinance and may file ejectment proceedings in his name/on behalf of landlord---There is no bar or restriction under law preventing an attorney from instituting ejectment proceedings on ground of bona fide personal need. (d) Landlord and tenant---- ----Bona fide personal need---Statement on oath---Sufficiency---Supreme Court reiterated that statement of landlord on oath, if consistent with ejectment application and not shaken in cross-examination or disproved in rebuttal, is sufficient to prove bona fide personal need---Tenant failed to disprove landlord’s case; no inconsistency between pleadings and evidence was shown. Cited Cases: • Messrs F.K. Irani & Co. v. Begum Feroze 1996 SCMR 1178 • Mst. Toheed Khanam v. Muhammad Shamshad 1980 SCMR 593 • Muhammad Shoaib Alam v. Muhammad Iqbal 2000 SCMR 903 • Messrs Al-Karam Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. v. East West Insurance Co. Ltd. 2001 SCMR 688 (e) Landlord and tenant---- ----Commercial premises---Nature of intended business---Experience in business---Not mandatory---Supreme Court reiterated that landlord seeking ejectment from commercial premises on ground of personal bona fide need is not legally required to disclose exact nature of business intended to be started, nor required to prove prior experience in such trade or business. Cited Case: • Juma Sher v. Sabz Ali 1997 SCMR 1062 (f) Constitutional jurisdiction---- ----Art. 199 of Constitution---Concurrent findings in rent matter---Scope of interference---High Court dismissed tenant’s writ petition after appellate Court had accepted landlord’s appeal and ordered ejectment---Supreme Court held that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and meant to correct orders passed without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in violation of law---High Court should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded after proper appraisal of evidence where substantial justice has been done. (g) Concurrent findings---- ----Interference by Supreme Court---Limited scope---Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of lower courts are not to be disturbed unless there is patent illegality, misreading or non-consideration of material evidence, error of law apparent on face of record, perversity, physical impossibility, or grave miscarriage of justice---No such defect was shown in appellate Court’s findings as affirmed by High Court; impugned judgment was based on proper appreciation of evidence and relevant legal principles. (h) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S. 10---Plea of previously pending proceedings---Rent ejectment matter---Tenant argued that S.10, C.P.C. was applicable because another case between parties regarding same subject matter was pending---Supreme Court found no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional defect in High Court judgment and declined interference; ejectment proceedings were maintained on basis of landlord’s proved bona fide personal need and valid authority of attorney. Disposition: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal was dismissed and leave refused; judgment of Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench dated 23.07.2025 dismissing tenant’s writ petition was maintained; appellate Court’s order allowing ejectment petition on ground of bona fide personal need through duly authorised attorney remained intact.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Constitutional jurisdiction ----Art. 199, Constitution of Pakistan—Scope in rent matters—Concurrent findings of fact—Standard for interference ---- High Court, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199, cannot substitute its own view on disputed facts or re-appraise evidence unless the subordinate fora’s concurrent findings suffer from gross misreading/non-reading of material evidence, are perverse, or are unsupported by the record—Interference with well-reasoned concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority holding that arrears were not proved was impermissible. Fozia Mazhar v. ADJ Jhang (PLD 2024 SC 771) followed; State Life Insurance v. Jaffar Hussain (2009 CLD 610) and Allies Book Corporation v. Sultan Ahmad (2006 SCMR 152) reiterated. (b) Rent laws ----West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, S.13(2)(i)—Non-payment of rent—Limitation/laches—Burden Where tenancy admittedly expired in 2016 and ejectment proceedings for non-payment were instituted in 2020 without explanation, claim for arrears was hit by the statutory scheme and laches—In absence of acknowledgment or revival of tenancy, arrears could not be granted for the interceding period. (c) Evidence—Best evidence rule; adverse inference; ex parte proceedings ----Qanun-e-Shahadat—Uncorroborated affidavit—Withholding material witness—Effect Landlord’s sole reliance on an uncorroborated affidavit (Exh. PW-1/1) and failure to examine the person (“Saleem”) allegedly assuring continued possession constituted withholding of best evidence, attracting an adverse inference—Mere ex parte status of the tenant does not shift the legal burden; claimant must affirmatively prove continued possession/use and arrears—Shop being found locked, with no proof of use or benefit by tenant, disentitled landlord to arrears. (d) Rent control—Ejectment vs. arrears ----Concurrent findings restored Controller rightly allowed ejectment but declined arrears for want of proof; Appellate Authority concurred—High Court’s grant of rent for 2016–2024, absent proof of possession or subsisting tenancy, was contrary to settled principles and set aside. Cited Cases: • Fozia Mazhar v. ADJ Jhang PLD 2024 SC 771 • State Life Insurance v. Jaffar Hussain 2009 CLD 610 • Allies Book Corporation v. Sultan Ahmad 2006 SCMR 152 Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed; High Court judgment dated 11.10.2024 set aside; judgments of the Rent Controller (21.06.2021) and Appellate Authority (28.10.2022) restored—Ejectment maintained; claim for arrears declined. Approved for reporting; announced in open Court on 29.09.2025.

Summary: (a) Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 ---- S. 15 ---- Eviction petition ---- Existence of landlord-tenant relationship ---- Onus of proof and jurisdictional fact. Petitioner sought eviction of respondent under S.15 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, asserting that respondent was her tenant on oral agreement at a monthly rent of Rs.30,000/-. Respondent denied existence of any tenancy and claimed ownership of the demised premises under entries in her nikahnama. Rent Controller, appellate court, and High Court concurrently found that the petitioner failed to prove existence of tenancy or payment of rent. Held, that existence of landlord-tenant relationship is a jurisdictional fact; without it, Rent Controller lacks jurisdiction to entertain an eviction petition. Onus lies on the petitioner-landlord to establish such relationship by credible evidence—oral or documentary—showing agreement and rent payment. Failure to prove either renders the petition not maintainable. Reliance placed on Mian Umar Ikram-ul-Haque v. Dr. Shahida Hasnain (2016 SCMR 2186). (b) Landlord and tenant ---- Proof of tenancy ---- Payment of rent as sine qua non. Under S.2(1) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, a tenant is one who undertakes or is bound to pay rent as consideration for occupation of premises. Payment of rent is not a mere incident of tenancy but a sine qua non for the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship. Where rent is neither paid nor proved, inference of tenancy cannot arise. Petitioner produced no receipts, notices, or credible witness testimony to establish payment of rent by respondent; hence, no tenancy relationship was proved. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- S. 12(2) ---- Pending applications affecting title ---- Effect on Rent Controller’s jurisdiction. Petitioner’s claim of ownership over the demised premises was based on a decree dated 25.09.2008 and sale deed dated 24.12.2008. Applications under S.12(2), C.P.C., challenging the said decree and sale deed were pending adjudication. Court held that it was not competent for the Rent Controller or appellate forums to comment on the validity of those civil proceedings or ownership claims while tenancy itself was unproved. Jurisdiction under the 2009 Act arises solely upon proof of a landlord-tenant relationship, independent of ownership controversies. (d) Concurrent findings of fact ---- Scope of interference by Supreme Court. Where three courts below—Rent Controller, appellate court, and High Court—have concurrently held against the petitioner on factual grounds, the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere unless findings are perverse, based on misreading, or non-reading of evidence. The concurrent conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish tenancy was neither arbitrary nor unsupported by record and thus warranted no interference. Disposition: Leave to appeal refused; petition dismissed. Concurrent findings of Rent Controller, appellate court, and High Court upheld.

Summary: (a) Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 ---- Ss. 5, 8 & 9 ---- Existing tenancy not brought in conformity with the Ordinance ---- Non-payment of fine by landlord ---- Effect ---- Opportunity to cure defect. Eviction petition was filed on 09.01.2008 under the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007, though the rent agreement dated 31.12.1996 had not been presented before the Rent Registrar under S.5(2) nor was fine under S.9 deposited. High Court dismissed the appellant-landlord’s writ petition holding that the tenancy was non-compliant with the Ordinance. Held, that S.8 allows two years’ grace period from 16.11.2007 to bring existing tenancies in conformity, and omission to present the tenancy agreement before the Rent Registrar within that period does not automatically render an eviction petition incompetent. Under Abdul Hameed Talib v. Additional District Judge, Lahore (PLD 2013 SC 775), the Rent Tribunal should halt proceedings and give opportunity to the applicant to deposit fine under S.9 rather than dismissing the petition outright. High Court erred by dismissing the writ petition without affording appellant opportunity to cure the defect. (b) Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 ---- Ss. 5(2), 8 & 9 ---- Scope and interaction of provisions. Sections 8 and 9 must be read harmoniously: S.8 provides the time frame for compliance by existing tenancies, while S.9 imposes obligation to pay fine when a landlord seeks to invoke the Ordinance’s remedies despite non-registration. Non-compliance does not extinguish the tenancy or bar eviction proceedings; it only requires payment of the statutory fine before further proceedings. Failure of the Rent Tribunal to direct deposit of fine, and of respondent-tenant to raise objection, could not justify dismissal of eviction petition by appellate or High Court. (c) Civil and Rent Jurisdiction ---- Pendency of ownership suit ---- Effect on rent proceedings. Respondent-tenant claimed ownership of the demised premises and pendency of a declaratory civil suit, alleging that appellant-landlord was a benami owner. Appellate Court wrongly set aside eviction order on this ground. Held, pendency of ownership litigation does not bar or stay rent proceedings. Until civil court decrees ownership in favour of respondent, appellant remains recorded owner and entitled to maintain eviction petition. Reliance placed on Mst. Musarrat Shaheen v. Mst. Verbeena Khan Afroz (2024 SCMR 1796), Nisar Khan v. Nadia Ali Butt (2024 SCMR 452), Muhammad Nisar v. Izhar Ahmed Sheikh (PLD 2014 SC 347), Abdul Rasheed v. Maqbool Ahmed (2011 SCMR 320), and others. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984) ---- Art. 84 ---- Comparison of signatures by court ---- Caution and evidentiary limitations. Appellate Court compared respondent-tenant’s signatures on rent agreement with those on identity documents and relied upon a private letter (Exh.R-1/A) without producing bank officer or account-opening forms in evidence. Held, that comparison of handwriting or signatures by court without expert opinion or corroborating evidence is unsafe and inconclusive. Reference made to Sumaira Malik v. Umar Aslam Awan (2018 SCMR 1432) and Rehmat Ali Ismaila v. Khalid Mehmood (2004 SCMR 361). Appellate Court’s findings based on such comparison were unsustainable. Disposition: Appeal allowed. Judgments of High Court (07.05.2012) and appellate court (06.07.2011) set aside. Matter remanded to appellate court to decide afresh after granting appellant opportunity to deposit fine under S.9(a) of the 2007 Ordinance. Status quo regarding possession of demised premises to continue during pendency of appeal.

Summary: (Against the impugned judgment dated 16.12.2020 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in R.F.A. No. 281-P of 2019). Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)--- ----S. 17---Ejectment of tenant---Default---Payment of rent---Proof---Adjustment of loan---Tentative Rent Order---Non-compliance---Effect---Appellants/landlords were aggrieved of setting aside of ejectment order against respondents/tenants---Plea raised by respondents/tenants was that rent was being adjusted towards payment of loan by predecessor-in-interest of appellants/landlords---Validity---No documentary evidence to such effect was produced before the Courts below, which otherwise was sufficient to establish the willful default in payment of rent for period in question---Non-compliance of Tentative Rent Order itself was sufficient ground for ejectment of appellants / tenants without further inquiry into merits as it had constituted willful default---High Court passed its judgment without appreciating factual position and evidence produced by parties in support of their respective claims and had misdirected itself while setting aside order passed by Rent Controller on the issue of default in payment of rent, nor could appreciate the effect of non-compliance of Tentative Rent Order passed---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by High Court on the ground of default in payment of rent and judgment of Rent Controller was upheld---Appeal was allowed. M.H. Mussadaq v. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal and another 2004 SCMR 1453 and Misbahullah Khan v. Mst. Memoona Taskinuddin 1995 SCMR 287 rel. Irfan Javed, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Iftikhar Ahmad Bashir and Khaliq uz Zaman, Advocates Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 ----S. 2(j), 21 Landlord–Tenant relationship—Oral tenancy between father and son—Scope—Petitioner, father of Respondent No.3 (son), claimed existence of an oral tenancy agreement for 11 months over an upper portion of his residential property and sought eviction based on alleged default in rent payment—Petitioner failed to establish tenancy relationship as required under S.2(j) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001—No written agreement existed and no independent witness was produced to corroborate oral tenancy—Held, in absence of clear evidence and where relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed, burden lies heavily on party asserting tenancy—Payments made by Respondent No. 3 to Petitioner lacked regularity and consistency, could not conclusively be deemed as rent—Courts below rightly dismissed ejectment petition—No illegality or material irregularity found. Disposition: Writ Petition dismissed. Cited Provision: Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001, S. 2(j) (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 133 & General Principles Rebuttal evidence—Scope and discretion—Petitioner’s application to produce rebuttal evidence was dismissed by Rent Controller—Petitioner argued denial of fair trial—Held, rebuttal evidence is permissible after cross-examination under Art. 133, but such permission remains within trial court’s discretion—In present case, Petitioner had already led evidence but failed to substantiate oral agreement—No miscarriage of justice or violation of fair trial rights established. (c) Constitutional Jurisdiction ----Art. 199 Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court—Concurrent findings of fact—High Court declined to interfere with concurrent judgments of Rent Controller and Appellate Court—Held, where findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence and law, constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 cannot be exercised to reappraise evidence—Petitioner failed to establish any perversity, misreading, or illegality requiring interference. Disposition: Constitutional petition dismissed in limine.

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.