Summary: (Against the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition No. 4357-P of 2017). West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ----S.13---Ejectment of tenant--- Relationship of landlord and tenant---Proof---Utility bills---Scope---Petitioner/tenant was aggrieved of eviction order passed by Lower Appellate Court, which was maintained by High Court---Petitioner/tenant claimed to be owner of demised premises and had relied upon utility bills in his name---Validity---Utility bills in the name of any person only denote possession of property but they do not prove ownership of the same---When tenant disputes ownership of landlord, the only recourse available with him is to file a civil suit---High Court and Lower Appellate Court had correctly decided the issue of ownership---Supreme Court declined to interfere in orders passed by Lower Appellate Court and High Court, as there was no illegality or irregularity---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Tassaduq Hussain v. Muneer Fatima 2014 SCMR 1744 and Ahmad Ali alias Ali Ahmad v. Nasar-ud-Din PLD 2009 SC 453 rel. Tariq Aziz, Advocate-on-Record/Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th January, 2025.

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 ----S. 13----Eviction petition----Landlord-tenant relationship----Scope----Respondents filed an eviction petition under S. 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, claiming the petitioner was their tenant and had defaulted in rent payments since February 2010----Petitioner denied the tenancy relationship, claiming ownership of the property through a sale agreement----Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition; however, the Appellate Court reversed the decision and ordered eviction----High Court upheld the appellate order, holding that the tenancy relationship was established through rent receipts and the rent agreement. Cited Cases: • Tassaduq Hussain v. Mst. Muneer Fatima 2014 SCMR 1744 • Ahmad Ali alias Ali Ahmad v. Nasar-ud-Din 2009 PLD 453 (b) Civil Procedure----Ownership claims by tenant----Jurisdiction----Scope ----Tenant disputing ownership of the landlord must seek remedy through a civil suit----Petitioner’s claim of ownership based on a sale agreement was not proved, as marginal witnesses were not produced, nor was any revenue official examined----Mutation documents were unexhibited and unverified----Utility bills in the name of the petitioner did not confer ownership but only indicated possession----Supreme Court affirmed that ownership disputes must be adjudicated by a Civil Court and cannot be used as a defense in eviction proceedings. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ----Burden of proof----Tenant’s claim of ownership----Scope----Petitioner failed to produce credible evidence supporting ownership claim----Rent deed and receipts produced by respondents were found to be cogent evidence proving tenancy relationship----Supreme Court held that in absence of proof of ownership, the petitioner’s status remained that of a tenant. (d) Civil Procedure----Eviction proceedings----Effect of pending civil suit----Scope ----Eviction proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance are independent of any ownership claim under civil law----Petitioner was directed to vacate the premises based on tenancy evidence, while retaining the right to pursue a separate civil suit for ownership if so advised. Disposition: Petition dismissed. Appellate Court and High Court orders upheld. Petitioner directed to vacate the premises. Any ownership claim to be adjudicated separately in a Civil Court.

Summary: (Against the order dated 05.08.2021 of the Sindh High Court, Karachi passed in Constitutional Petition No. S-1363 of 2011). Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Eviction of tenant---Default in payment of monthly rent---Unauthorized subletting of the property---Ex-parte order passed by Rent Controller not obtained by way of fraud or misrepresentation---Rent Controller attempted to serve notices upon the lesses and petitioners in the rent/eviction application through various modes, including by way of Bailiff, Registered Post A/D, T.C.S, pasting notice on the wall and gate of the property and finally through publication---Despite these efforts, the lessee and petitioners in the matter failed to appear---In view of the same, the Rent Controller decided that service was valid/good against the lessee and petitioners and after being afforded several chances to contest the case, the lessee and petitioners were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte, which was followed by an ex parte judgment, allowing the land lady's (respondent's) rent/eviction application---Validity---Rent Controller had attempted to issue notices to the petitioners through numerous modes, including by way of the Court Bailiff, Registered Post A/D, T.C.S, pasting notice on the wall and gate of the property and finally through publication---It was only after exhausting all the modes of service that the Rent Controller held service to be good against the petitioners---Despite notice, through all its modes and at the correct address, the petitioners had failed to enter appearance and absented themselves from proceedings in the eviction application---Order for ex parte proceedings and ex parte judgment that followed could not, therefore, be considered as a result of fraud or misrepresentation but of the willful absence of the petitioners---Furthermore, the fact that there had earlier been litigation concerning the property was not a valid ground for interference with the findings of the three Courts below---Moreover, the controversy highlighted by the petitioners that in an earlier rent/eviction application, the respondent's attorney had claimed to be owner whereas in the instant application he claimed to be the respondent's attorney would not improve their case since it would not change their status as unauthorized sub-lessees of the original lessee---No valid ground was found for interference with the orders of the three Courts below---Petition, being devoid of any merits, was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Ghulam Rasool Mangi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. N.R. for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th December, 2024.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ----Arts. 185(3), 199 & Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)—Fraud—Misrepresentation—Scope of review—Ex parte proceedings—Service of notice—Presumption of correctness attached to judicial proceedings. Petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, District Court, and Sindh High Court, all of which dismissed their application under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C., holding that no fraud or misrepresentation had been committed by the respondent in securing an ex parte judgment for eviction. The Rent Controller had issued notices through multiple modes, including bailiff, registered post, T.C.S., pasting on the property, and publication. Despite valid service, the petitioners failed to appear, and ex parte proceedings were rightly conducted. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation regarding the attorney's role and past litigation history were dismissed as irrelevant. The Supreme Court upheld the presumption of correctness attached to judicial proceedings and emphasized that mere allegations of fraud, without substantive evidence, are insufficient grounds to invalidate valid judicial orders. Cited Cases: Allah Dita v. Bashir Ahmed (1997 SCMR 181) Muhammad Yaqoob v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) (1981 SCMR 519) Faizur Rehman v. Rahman Ud Din alias Mirza (1997 SCMR 1301) (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----Section 12(2)—Scope of fraud and misrepresentation—Burden of proof. For an application under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. to succeed, the petitioner must establish fraud or misrepresentation through substantive evidence. The burden lies heavily on the party alleging fraud. Failure to respond to properly served notices cannot subsequently be justified through allegations of fraud unless supported by concrete evidence. (c) Rent Restriction Ordinance—Ex parte proceedings—Validity of service. When a Rent Controller exhausts all legally recognized modes of service, including bailiff, registered post, pasting on the premises, and publication, and declares service valid, ex parte proceedings cannot be challenged on the ground of non-service. Petitioners' failure to appear after valid service constitutes willful default. (d) Administration of Justice—Presumption of correctness—Role of appellate courts. Presumption of correctness is attached to judicial orders unless successfully rebutted with evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or jurisdictional error. Appellate courts are not bound to interfere in findings of fact consistently upheld by subordinate courts unless clear perversity is shown. Disposition: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal dismissed in limine.

Summary: Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Proof under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009: For initiating eviction proceedings under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, it is mandatory for the applicant to establish a landlord-tenant relationship. The applicant must demonstrate either ownership of the premises or entitlement to receive rent as per Section 2(d) of the Act. Conversely, the respondent must meet the definition of a tenant under Section 2(l), which includes legal heirs or sub-tenants authorized in writing by the landlord. (PLD 2011 Lahore 483; PLD 1988 Lahore 541) ----- Effect of Waqf Deed on Ownership Rights: Properties dedicated as Waqf (علےالیہ وقف) through a valid Waqf-deed cannot be alienated, as Waqf is permanent in nature and creates irrevocable dedication for religious, pious, or charitable purposes. The rights of the original owner are extinguished upon dedication, precluding any further transfer or sale of the property. (PLD 2011 Lahore 483; 1996 CLC 663) ----- Scope of Rent Controller in Title Disputes: While a Rent Controller does not have jurisdiction to conclusively determine title disputes, it must preliminarily assess whether the applicant has a valid legal claim as landlord. The lack of authorization to receive rent or the presence of a valid Waqf precludes the applicant from proceeding under the Act. (PLD 2011 Lahore 483; PLD 1988 Lahore 541) ----- Doctrine of Waqf – Irrevocability and Alienation Restrictions: Under Islamic law and principles codified in Muhammadan Law, a Waqf is irrevocable once completed, and the property becomes inalienable unless explicitly permitted by the Waqf-deed. A subsequent sale or transfer by the Waqif or his heirs is invalid and has no legal effect. (PLD 2011 Lahore 483; Muhammadan Law by D.F. Mulla) ----- Outcome: The writ petition was dismissed, and the appellate court's decision to set aside the eviction order passed by the Special Judge (Rent), Rawalpindi, was upheld. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner failed to establish the landlord-tenant relationship required under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, as the property in question was dedicated as Waqf and could not be alienated. The eviction order was deemed illegal and without jurisdiction. ----- Citations and Precedents Cited: Faraz Ahmad Bhutta v. Additional District Judge (PLD 2011 Lahore 483) Khalid Javed v. Qazi Masood-ur-Rehman (PLD 1988 Lahore 541) Hafeezullah Baig v. Mst. Naheed Jalil (1996 CLC 663) Muhammadan Law by D.F. Mulla (Sections 173-193)

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 27.09.2024 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in F.R.A. No. 06 of 2018). (a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15(2)(vii)---Eviction of tenant, seeking of---Ground---Bona fide personal need of the landlord is sufficient reason to seek eviction of tenant---It is the sole choice and prerogative of the landlord to choose the premises which better suits him as he is the best judge of his personal need and he is not under any legal obligation to act upon dictation of the tenant---Personal bona fide need is accepted as a sufficient reason to seek eviction of the tenant. Dr. Abdul Raziq v. Mubeen-ul-Haq Khan and others 1991 SCMR 1527; Muhammad Munir v. Additional District Judge and others 1991 SCMR 453; Wajahat Hasan v. Khawaja Bashir Ahmed 1993 SCMR 707; Mujahid Hussain Shah v. K.S.B. Pumps Company Ltd. and 2 others PLD 1996 SC 787; Abdul Wahid Lehri v. Arbab Mir Nawaz and 3 others 1997 SCMR 1789; Abdul Rashid v. Syed Zafar Yab Ali and 3 others 1999 SCMR 2478; Ishrat Yar Khan v. Abdul Rehman PLD 2000 SC 783; Karachi Taneery (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Muhammad Yousaf through Legal Heirs 2002 SCMR 680; Jahangir Rustam Kakalia through its legal heirs v. Messrs Hashwani Sales and Services (Pvt.) Ltd. 2002 SCMR 241; Feroz ud Din and another v. Additional District Judge, Karachi East and another 2012 SCMR 1679 and Muhammad Hayat v. Muhammad Miskeen (decd.) through L.Rs. and others 2018 SCMR 1441 rel. (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15(2)(vii)---Eviction petition---Relationship between landlord and tenant, denial of---Suit for specific performance with respect to suit property filed by the tenant---Effect---Where a tenant has entered into an agreement with the vendor and has purchased the demised premises, for which he has instituted suit for specific performance and he denies the proprietary rights of the landlord on the ground of agreement to sell then he (tenant) is bound to first of all deliver the possession of the premises in question and then to contest his proprietary rights in the property and if ultimately he (tenant) succeeds in his suit for specific performance he can then enforce the same---Moreover, in absence of any evidence in rebuttal of title of landlord, there would be a strong presumption of existence of tenancy between the parties. Barkat Masih v. Mansoor Ahmad (deceased) through LRs. PLD 2005 FSC 105 and Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique and 2 others PLD 2007 SC 46 rel. (c) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15---Eviction of tenant---Tenancy, expiry of---Tenant continuing to hold possession of premises without landlord's consent---Effect and scope---After expiration of the tenancy period, a tenant, though can continue to hold over the possession of the rented premises, but his tenancy is rendered invalid, in that, it has come to an end and if there is no express consent of the landlord to extend the tenancy period the tenant shall be guilty of having infringed the condition of tenancy, rendering him liable to be evicted. Waqar Zafar Bakhtawari and 6 others v. Haji Mazhar Hussain Shah and others PLD 2018 SC 81 rel. Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (via video-link from Karachi). Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th November, 2024.

Summary: (a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Ejectment of tenant---Default in payment of rent and bona fide personal need of land lord---Denial of relation of landlord and tenant on the ground of business partnership---Ejectment application filed by the landlord was dismissed by the Rent Controller but Appellate Court ordered eviction---Validity---Petitioner though asserted that he was not a tenant of the landlord and was enjoying the premises in the capacity of partner, but failed to place on record any evidence or any other material that might prove his plea, whereas sufficient material had been placed on record on behalf of the landlord on the point of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, commission of default and personal bona fide need---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XLI, R. 24---Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.15(2)--- Where evidence on record sufficient---Power of Appellate court to determine case finally---Scope---Plea of the petitioner (tenant) was that the Appellate Court instead of passing the eviction order should have remanded the matter to the Rent Controller---Validity---Appellate Court while deciding a matter, if found fit, may decide the case on merits without remanding the case to the Trial Court---Remanding of case causes prolongation of the agony of the parties---Plea of petitioner was rejected. Ashiq Ali v. Mst. Zamir Fatima PLD 2004 SC 10 rel. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Conflicting decisions of courts below---Decision of Appellate Court---Preference---In case of conflicting decisions, the Appellate Court's findings should be given weight and respect unless it is clear from the record that such findings are not evidence-based and are materially illegal. Rao Abdul Rehman (deceased) through legal heirs v. Muhammad Afzal (deceased) through legal heirs and others 2023 SCMR 815 rel. Ali Ahmed Tariq for Petitioner. Mukesh Kumar G. Karara along with Sajid Ali Channa for Respondent No.1. Ali Zardari, A.A.G. Date of hearing: 8th November, 2024.

Summary: ChatGPT said: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----Ss. 47 & 151---Execution of decree---Jurisdiction of executing court---Scope--- Executing court directed judgment debtor to deposit arrears of utility bills (SSGCL and K-Electric) through an application filed by decree holder under section 151, C.P.C.---Held, that executing court had no jurisdiction to travel beyond the terms of the decree or to introduce obligations not adjudicated in the original proceedings---Questions relating to satisfaction or discharge of decree must be confined strictly to the decree’s contents---Court relied on principle laid down in Mst. Naseem Akhtar v. Shalimar General Insurance Co. Ltd. (1994 SCMR 22), that executing courts cannot go behind, vary, or supplement a final decree. (b) Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 ----S. 13---Eviction proceedings---Scope of execution--- Eviction application decided in favour of landlord; decree satisfied upon delivery of possession---No issue regarding recovery of utility arrears was framed nor any finding recorded by Rent Controller---Held, that once decree stood fully executed, subsequent claim for additional amounts such as utility arrears could not be entertained through execution or by invoking section 151 C.P.C., as this would amount to reopening and enlarging the decree. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----S. 47---Questions arising between parties---Determination--- All questions relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction must arise from the decree itself and cannot extend to fresh liabilities not embodied therein---Executing court must act strictly within the four corners of the decree and cannot rectify alleged omissions or mistakes by the trial court. (g) Disposition --- Appeal allowed---Impugned order dated 16-12-2023 set aside to the extent of direction requiring appellant to deposit utility arrears of SSGCL and K-Electric---Executing court exceeded jurisdiction by going beyond decree which had attained finality.

Summary: Landlord and Tenant Relationship under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 --Grounds for Eviction and Expiry of Tenancy Period: ----Eviction Due to Expiry of Tenancy Period: The expiry of the tenancy period constitutes a valid ground for eviction under Section 15(a) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, even if not explicitly raised in the eviction petition, provided the tenancy period expires during the pendency of the proceedings. (Muhammad Naseem Khan and others v. United Bank Limited, PLD 2002 SC 753, applied.) ----Admissibility of Subsequent Causes of Action: Courts can take judicial notice of subsequent events, such as the expiry of tenancy, that arise during the pendency of eviction proceedings, without necessitating a fresh eviction petition. ----Relevance of the Landlord's Consent: A tenant cannot unilaterally extend a tenancy agreement beyond its original term without the landlord's explicit consent. Upon expiry of the tenancy, the tenant is deemed to be in default, regardless of whether the ground was initially raised in the eviction petition. ----Eviction Due to Rent Default: --Short or Delayed Rent Payments: Short and delayed payments, even if partially accepted by the landlord, constitute a default under the tenancy agreement. Acceptance of such payments does not amount to a waiver or ratification of default by the landlord. ----Disputed Rent Arrears and Ejectment: An eviction order may still be validly passed on the ground of default, even if arrears of rent are not ultimately awarded due to payment adjustments during litigation. Undertakings and Compliance in Litigation: A tenant’s compliance with undertakings to clear arrears during litigation does not negate prior instances of default. Procedure and Judicial Considerations ----Effect of Judicial Notice and Subsequent Events: ----Efficiency in Adjudication: Requiring landlords to file fresh eviction petitions after the expiry of tenancy would unnecessarily prolong disputes, contrary to the Punjab Rented Premises Act's objective of expeditious resolution. ----Judicial Interpretation: Courts are mandated to interpret the Act's provisions purposively, ensuring disputes are resolved cost-effectively and promptly, as per its preamble. Binding Nature of Consent Orders: ----Effect of Prior Consent Orders: A tenant’s acknowledgment of default and undertaking to pay arrears under a consent order binds them in subsequent proceedings. ----Relevant Precedents: Muhammad Naseem Khan v. United Bank Limited (PLD 2002 SC 753) Mst. Zehra Begum v. Malik Syed Asghar Ali Shah (PLD 2001 SC 346) Case-Specific Observations ----Findings on Default and Expiry: The tenant was found to have consistently failed to pay the full agreed rent of PKR 130,000, with instances of short and delayed payments constituting default under the tenancy agreements. ----Dismissal of Claims for Rent Arrears: Although arrears were not awarded due to payments during litigation, the tenant’s conduct of partial and delayed payments warranted eviction. ----Validity of Eviction Order: The eviction order, based on the expiry of tenancy during proceedings, was upheld as lawful and aligned with judicial precedents. ----Conclusion: The petitions challenging the eviction orders were dismissed for lack of merit, affirming that the landlord/landlady were entitled to regain possession of the premises.

Summary: -----Quote: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The sole statement of the landlord could be considered if it is inspiring confidence as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mesesrs. F.K Irani & Co’ case that “statement of landlord on oath, if consistent with the application for ejectment and not shaken in cross-examination or disproved in rebuttal is sufficient to prove that requirement of landlord is bona fide.”. The possession of the respondents has been proved on record, they remained in possession but have not paid any rent, thus, the evidence of the PW-1 alone was sufficient to hold him entitled for the recovery of the outstanding rent. It appears from the order sheet of the learned Appellate Court dated 28.01.2022 that the respondents through their counsel Mr. Hamid Ullah Khan, Advocate appeared but even then, they have not questioned the validity of the judgment and findings of the learned Rent controller to the extent of the possession of the respondents after expiry of the tenancy period and even before this court no such petition was filed by the them which is an admission on their part for which the landlord is entitled for the outstanding rent from the date of expiry of the tenancy till January 2024 @ Rs 50,000/- per month. The petitioner appeared before the learned Rent Controller, his statement was recorded on oath and same went unrebutted, whatever was deposed by the petitioner in his examination-in-chief has not been cross-examined by the respondents. It is an established law that when a portion of a statement has not been cross examined, that is deemed to have been admitted by the other side. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the cases of “Muhammad Akhtar Vs Mst. Manna and three other (2001 SCMR 1700) and Haji Din Muhammad through legal heirs Vs Mst. Hajira Bibi and others (PLD 2002 Peshawar). Mrs Akbar Brothers vs. M. Khalil Dar (PLD 2007 Lahore 385), Mst. Zargoon and others Vs Mst Shadana and others (2002 CLC 1539). ------Background: The petitioner filed an application for the ejectment of respondents (tenants) from a rented shop in Mingora, Swat, due to non-payment of rent since 2016 after the expiration of the lease agreement. The Rent Controller partially granted the application, ordering ejectment but dismissing the claim for outstanding rent recovery, as the petitioner failed to substantiate it. The petitioner appealed, but the Additional District Judge upheld the Rent Controller's decision. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a constitutional petition challenging the appellate court's order. ------Issues: 1- Whether the respondents retained possession of the shop post-lease expiration without paying rent. -----2- Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover outstanding rent from 2016 onwards. -----3- Whether the petitioner’s claim for outstanding rent is time-barred. ------Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court dismissed the petition, reasoning that: The respondents had vacated the shop, and there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the petitioner’s claim for outstanding rent. The petitioner delayed filing the application for rent recovery, weakening the claim and making it time-barred. The petitioner's unchallenged affidavit alone was insufficient to overcome the procedural and substantive legal hurdles in proving rent arrears, especially given the lapse in time since the lease expiration. -----Citations/Precedents: Messrs F.K Irani and Co. Vs. Begum Feroze (1996 SCMR 1178) Miss Akhtar Oureshi Vs. Nisar Ahmad (2002 SCMR 1292) Juma Sher Vs. Sabz Air (1997 SCMR 1062) Mian Muhammad Fareed Vs. Khalid Wadood (2021 CLC 1093) Muhammad Iqbal vs. Syed Muhammad Tahir Zahoor and others (2020 MLD 522)