SRPO Citations

SINDH RENTED PREMISES ORDINANCE,1979
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,1979
1. Default in payment of Rent
2. Defence–Striking off
3. Notice of new ownership
4. Default in payment–Ground of
5. Relationship of landlord and tenant — Denial of
Bona fide personal need–Choice of landlord–Contention of tenant was that since identical
premises on first floor of building were lying vacant, landlord could safely occupy same and
his need would be satisfied–Contention of tenant was repelled because that would be
fettering landlord’s right to obtain such living space as desired by him–Landlord was to
decide and choose any one of premises belonging to him for his use and occupation. PLJ
1999 Karachi 779
1. Default in payment of Rent–Ejectment of appellants by Rent Controller–Challenge
to–Appellants in their evidence recorder by Rent. Controller, admitted that after payment of
rent in month of July, 1993 to K (a legal heir) they have not sent any rent through money
order to K–It is also admitted fact. that they did not send any notice to K stating that he has
refused to accept rent and it is also admitted fact that, they did not send any notice to any of
respondents to the effect that they have started depositing rent in court–It. is also admitted
fact. that after death of A rent. was paid to K one of legal heirs of A and suddenly thereafter
without any notice or tendering rent through money order both appellants started depositing

rent in Misc. Rent cases–Held : Wilful default in payment of rent has substantially been
proved through mouth of appellants themselves and wilful default in payment of rent is fully
proved–Held further : Appellants have rightly been held to be wilful defaulters in payment of
rent by Rent Controller–Dismissed in lirnine. PLJ 1998 Karachi 417
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court, inter alia, on the round that default, if any,
could be technical only in nature as visualized by Supreme Court in Noor Muhammad v.
Mehdi PLD 1991 SC 711. PLJ 1999 SC 861

2. Defence–Striking off– Rent Controller should not pass an order of penal nature under
section 16(2) until and unless requirements, for passing such an order are fully met on the
basis of material on record–Tentative rent order was passed for depositing rent at Rs.
1200/- per month–Subsequently, parties compromised and rate of rent was enhanced from
Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 3500/- per month–It is further alleged that respondent refused to receive
rent and refused to issue receipts, rent was tendered through money orders–Thus, by virtue
of conduct of parties, original tentative rent order under S. 16(1) was no longer holding field
as rate of rent was increased–In such circumstances, respondent was estopped from filing
application u/S. 16(2) for enforcement of tentative rent orders which was passed when rent
was Rs. 1200/- per month–Since that. rent order was no longer holding field as rent was
increased, therefore, sending rent through money orders in circumstances of case is not in
violation of tentative rent order passed by court–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1998 Karachi 461

3. Notice of new ownership — Service of notice – – Effect of — Appellant/landlord after
having purchased property from evacuee transferee gave notice to tenants under Section
18 of the Ordinance, which admittedly was received by respondent, who had been paying
rent to-Evacuee Trust Board and thereafter, was depositing rent in Court — Inspite of fact
that title of appellant was challenged in court, yet sale-deed in his favour, unless cancelled,
entitled him to recover rent — Appeals accepted and cases remanded to decide other
issues. PLJ 1993 Karachi 242

4. Default in payment–Ground of–Tenancy is admitted by appellant as such burden lies on
tenant to prove that he has not committed default in payment of rent–It is also admitted by
him that he is in occupation of rented premises since 1968 and has not paid rent to
Landlord since then–Reason for not paying rent to respondent as advanced by appellant is
that no one came to collect rent and he did not know address of appellant and on receipt of
notice he immediately deposited rent in court–it is not possible to believe that tenant did not
know address of his Landlord–Even otherwise sub-section (3) of Section 10 provides that
rent can be deposited with Controller within whose jurisdiction premises is situated–Tenant
did deposit rented amount on 15.11.1992 which he could have done earlier–Held:
Ejectment orders maintained on point of default–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 37.

5. Relationship of landlord and tenant — Denial of — Dismissal of application — Challenge
to — Admitted factual position is that appellant was recorded tenant of disputed plot which
was purchased in open auction by one Z.A. Khan from Settlement Authorities — Appellant
thus became statutory tenant but as he was in possession he constructed shops and rented
out same to respondents falsely and fraudulently representing that he was owner thereof —
His suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was dismissed — Held: Relationship
of landlord and tenant did not exist between parties — Held further: Since appellant is not
owner of plot on which shops are constructed his application under Section 15 of Ordinance
cannot be allowed — Appeals dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 300

Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need–Ground of- Evidence on record prima facie
showed that requirement of landlord was according to law and was made in good
faith–Tenant had not been able to produced any document or any other reliable evidence to
show that landlord was owner of any other shop in that locality–Landlord, however, was not
obliged to disclose as to what sort of business he intended to run in shop–Landlod has
prerogative and discretion to determie and decided as to what he would do within premises
and what sort of business he would run or how he would be using that premises–Court
should ordinarily accept good faith against landlord–Tenant could not determine established
prima facie case of bona fide personal need he was entitled ejectment of tenant–Tenant
was directed to hand over vacant possession of premises to landlord. PLJ 1998 Karachi
660

Ejectment of tenant–Petition dismissed–Challenge to–Whether practice of lump sum
payments of rent amounts to default–Land lord accepted delayed payment of rent by tenant
at various occasions–No written tenancy agreement produced by either party–Held Under
provisions of rent laws, a tenant is under a statutory duty to pay rent to land lord every
month within 15 days of date fixed for payament of rent and in absence of any agreement
as to date for payment of rent within 60 days of month when rent galls due for
payment–Mere fact that landlady had been generous enough to accept accumulated rent
for four months at a time would not mean that respondent was licenced to continue this
practice at his own whims nor did it override statutory provisions of law–Appeal allowed.
PLJ 1996 Karachi 655

Ejectment of–Tenant–Personnal bonafide need–Ground of–Suit decreed–Challenge
to–Nothing has come on record that respondent was having any other house or portion
except first floor consisting of three bed-room and drawing-dining room where she could
accommodate their children–Evidence adduced by respondent/landlady has gone
unchallenged–Respondent/landlady cannot be deprived to have possession of premises for
all time to come which once was rented out by her–Contention that respondent should have
sought ejectment of another tenant has on merit and it is choice of owner/landlady to have

any portion of her premises for her personal need–Held: There is nothing illegal or improper
with judgment of learned Rent Controller–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 40
Expiry of period of sanction for reconstruction of property–Whether landlords would not be
entitled to eject appellant as was there no sanction in law after its expiration–Reference is
made to Rais Ahmad u. Mian Abdul Jubbar and another wherein it was held that landlord
could obtain extention of sanction if expired subsequent to order of eviction–Held: Orders of
ejectment are legal and no exception could be taken–Appeals dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi
693
Mere pendency of a Civil suit regarding ownership of premises will not automatically stay
the proceeding of rent case or rent appeal–If any party want stay of rent proceedings they
can apply to the Court where the suit regarding ownership of property is pending for such a
stay. PLJ 1996 Karachi 1086
Preamble-Indicative that Ordinance has been enforced to make effective provisions for
regulation of relationsbetween landlord and tenant and to protect their interests in respect of
rented premises within urban area. P L J 1981 Karachi 271

S- 16(1) & (2)–Ejectment application–Acceptance of–Appeal against–Acceptance
of–Challenge to–Failure of appellants to prove their assertion initially made by them in their
application for ejectment qua payment of rent by respondent No. 2 cannot lead to draw an
adverse inference against them–Appellants could not be declined relief on ground that in
earlier round of litigation finding on question of relationship of Land lord and tenant went
against appellants in view of dismissal of suit filed by respondent No- 2 to establish her
proprietary right in disputed premises–Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between
appellants and respondent No- 2 would not turn the mischief of sub-letting into a valid
transfer of premises–Deceased respondent No- 1 was original tenant–Respondent No- 2’s
husband having been adjudged as subletee, Rent Controller had jurisdiction to pass order
under Section 16(1) of Ordinance, 1979–Held : First. Appellate Court erred to interfere in
order of ejectment passed in favour of appellants on improper appreciation of evidence on
record–His findings suffered from mis-reading and non-reading of evidence–Appeal
accepted with costs- PLJ 1997 SC 1648

S. & 15 (II)–Determination of fair rent–Application allowed on 31.8.1986 without mentioning
period of fair rent–Period of fair rent would start from the data of order and not from the date
of filing of application–Demand of enhanced rent from the data of application neither legal
nor comes within the definition of default. PLJ 1997 Karachi 67

S. 10 & 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default–Ground of–Contention that words used in
agreement for payment of rent in advance were against provisions of Ordinance–Word
“advance” has no legal value as according to section 10 of Ordinance, what is important is
date when rent becomes due–Submission is without any substance–Rent becomes payable

in terms of mutual agreement between parties when there is such agreement, otherwise
rent becomes payable on 10th of month next following month for which it is due–There was
an agreement for payment of rent in advance–It was specifically pleaded that rent was
payable in advance on first of month–Such averment was not disputed either in written
statement or in evidence by appellant–Accordingly rent having not paid within 15 days of
expiry of period prescribed by mutual agreement–Held: Appellant had incurred liability of
eviction under Section 15 of Ordinance–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 405

S. 10(4)–Payment of rent–Burden of proving payment–If any landlord does not issue or
acknowledge receipt in writing in cases of tenancy started after promulgation of Ordinance,
then burden would be on tenants to prove payment of rent because it is choice of tenant to
take risk of paying rent without getting receipt from landlord–In such cases where any
landlord takes plea that rent has not been paid by tenant then sub-section (4) of section 10
leave no ambiguity that burden of proving payment of rent shall be discharged by tenant,’ by
producing written acknowledgment, postal money order, receipt or receipts of Controller as
case may be–Held: Tenant must deposit rent with Controller if landlord appears not to leave
any proof of rent. PLJ 1996 Karachi 612

S. 10–Non-issuance of acknowledgement receipt by landlord–Legal procedure–In case
landlord was not issuing any acknowledgement it was duty of tenant to have sent rent
through postal money order and if it was refused then in that case teat could have been
deposited with Rent Controller. PLJ 1997 Karachi 754

S. 10–Non-issuance of rent receipt by landlord–Onus on–Landlord was not issuing rent
receipt from July 1991 and was demanding increase in of rent–Held : Onus to prove
payment and non-issuance circumstances would be on appellant/tenant. PLJ 1997 Karachi
754 PLJ 1987 Kar. 208 rel.

S. 10–Tenant–Defaulter in payment of rent–Ejectment of–Appeal against–S. 10 of Rent
Ordinance clearly states that rent in absence of any fixed date stated in agreement between
landlord and tenant shall not be paid later than tenth of month next following month for
which it is due–Tenancy agreement was not renewed between parties and as per para 4 of
said agreement rent was payable by 10th of each calendar month which has not been paid
and has been proved by respondent and appellant has failed to rebut respondent’s
evidence–Appellant did not pay rent earlier also in time–Conduct of making delayed
payment of rent by appellant does not entitle him to discretion to be exercised in his
favour–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 137

S. 10–Tenant–Defaulter in payment of rent–Ejectment of–Appeal against-S. 10 of Rent
Ordinance clearly states that rent in absence of any fixed date stated in agreement
between_ landlord and tenant shall not be paid later than tenth of month next following
month for which it is due–Tenancy agreement was not renewed between parties and as per
para 4 of said agreement rent was payable by 10th of each calendar month which has not
been paid and has been proved by respondent/landlady and appellant/tenant has failed to
rebut respondent’s evidence–Appellant did not pay rent earlier also in time–Conduct of
making delayed payment of rent by appellant does not entitle him to discretion to be
exercised in his favour–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 484
S. 12Eviction of tenant-Default over a period of 3( years Contentionts-Alleged default was
an agreement to adjust rent against payment of taxes. payment for sui gas and construction
of water tank Possibility of spending money on property without obtaining receipts-Tenant
doing so in accordance with agreement but without obtaining receipt.- Not be lieveable-
Ejectment ordered. P L J 1981
S. 14 & 18–Ejectment application–Acceptance of–Appeal against-While deciding application
u/s 14 of Ordinance, 1979 first and foremost duty cast on Rent Controller is to see that
jurisdictional requirements are that (a) there should be relationship of landlord and tenant
(b) that landlord/landlady should either be widow, or a minor whose both parents are dead
or a salaried employee due for retirement within next six months or already retired or a
person who is due to attain age of 60 years and (c) inform tenant through a notice in writing
that in view of such contingency mentioned in paragraph (b) that he or she shall need
building in occupation of tenant for personal use and in such notice also mentions delivery
of vacant possession of building within such period as may be specified in notice which
shall not be earlier than two months from receipt of notice–Once these jurisdictional
requirements are established, in ordinary course, ejectment will follow–However, tenant
through positive evidence, if establishes on record that case of landlord falls within proviso
of S. 14(1) or subsection (2) of S. 14, ejectment of tenant must nut be allowed by Rent
Controller–With this particular position of law, evidence led by parties is to be scrutinised by
court–On behalf of respondent landlady her son examined himself as a witness and from
evidence it will be seen that landlord has satisfied all jurisdictional requirements which are
necessary in terms of S. 14 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979–Relationship of
landlord and tenant is not under dispute–Notice u/s 18 and 14 was served on tenants and
they admitted such fact that premises were demanded from tenants and such fact was also
not in dispute–Only dispute which requires settlement is whether there is cabin and that
cabin is a shop and whether that cabin is in possession of respondent–Building has only
four shops and all four shops are rented to appellants–Cabin is not permanent structure nor
it was built to be 5th shop and not mentioned in building plan, therefore, requirement of
landlord could not be denied due to so called cabin–Held : Respondents has established
her case for her requirements u/S. 14 and there is no other option but to order
ejectment–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 380
S. 14 (I) (2)-Eviction petition on basis of personal requirement-Subsection (2) not to be
isolated from subsection (1) of S. 14-Notice by landlady aged sixty years. that she required

nonresidential premises occupied by tenant, for her personal use as she had no other
nonresidential premises owned or possessed by herContention that S. 14 (2) was wide
enough to cover case of landlady who admittedly owned and possessed residential building
in same locality hence could not avail benefit of summary eviction under S. 14 (1)-Held :
wider meaning sought to be put to subsection (2) would negate intent of legislating S. 14 (I)
for benefit of certain class of persons. P L J 1981 Supreme Court 366
S. 14(4)–Tenant handed over Possession of property to landlord for
reconstruction–Restoration of same dimension & location–Determination of–Appliction
to–Dismissal of–Challenge to–It will be just and proper, if Rent Controller determines
location and dimension of shop taken from appellant–Held : Courts are established to solve
problems of public and not to create problems for them. PLJ 1996 Karachi 410
S. 14–Ejectment application by a widow–Whether a widow could not claim benefit of S. 14 if
she acquired property after becoming widow–Question of–Section 14 of Ordinance 1979
simply used word “widow”,therefore, case of a widow could be covered by it irrespective of
fact that whether she became widow before or after acquiring property. PLJ 1996 Karachi
546
S. 14Enquiry be Controller and hearing of tenant, impliedly intendedRent Controller seized
of application u/s 14 is to decide what procedure is to be adopted which may vary from case
to case depending upon circumstancesEnquiry to be held in a manner consistent with
principles of natural justiceOrder passed without recording evidence. set aside in appeal
and case remanded to decide question on further inquirry. P L J 1981 Karachi 271
S. 14–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Whether Respondents are entitled for ejectment
of Appellants from demised premises U/S 14 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance,
1979–Question of–Testimony of respondent could not be shaken in cross-examination by
appellant and no rebutting evidence is adduced to show that respondents were in
occupation of any other non-residential building–Expression “Personal use” specified in
Section 14 of Rent Ordinance would include use of owner or spouse or son or
daughter–Contention that respondents have approached court for relief of possession long
after attaining age of 60 years be deemed to have been waived their right of eviction–It has
no merit and substance–Held: Impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of
evidence–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 116
S. 14–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need–Ground of–Signature of landlady on
application and her thumb impression on N.I.C. is of no significance in view of admission of
appellant before Rent Controller–Power of attorney given by her in favour of her son is
attested by Notary Public and bears signatures of landlady and witnesses alongwith death
certificate of her husband–Notice as required under Sections 14 & 18 of Ordinance has also
been filed and adduced in evidence–Evidence of son of landlady and her attorney has gone
unchallenged–Contention of counsel for appellant is that appellant had paid Rs. 1,25,000/-
as, Pugree, to Thekadar–None mention of amount in written statement clearly shows that
this document has been produced later on to create defence–In any case, payment of
pugree is not legal transaction which cannot be given protection at all–Held: Rent Controller
after discussing evidence has rightly allowed ejectment application. PLJ 1998 Karachi 281

S. 14–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need–Ground of–Section 14 provides for a
summary procedure for eviction of tenant in cases of landlord/landlady falling in category
contemplated under subsection(1) thereof—Procedure under that sub section has to be
initiated by serving tenant with a notice in writing informing him that landlord/landlady needs
premises for personal use and requiring him to deliver vacant possession of premises within
such time as may be specified in notice but not earlier than two months from receipt
thereof–Such notice is mandatory and unless this notice is given to tenant proceedings for
his eviction through Rent Controller cannot be taken–It is only on non-compliance of such
notice that landlord/landlady may move Rent Controller for eviction of tenant–Landlady
failed to prove service of requisite notice under section 14 on appellant–field : Application to
Rent Controller for eviction of appellant was not maintainable. PLJ 1997 Karachi 763
S. 14–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bonafide need–Ground of–Evidence led by parties
had indicated that not only son of deceased landlord who had retired from service needed
premises in dispute to start his business, but even his widowed mother who was occupying
part of premises in dispute needed same for personal bona fide use–Scope of inquiry in
case under S. 14 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 would be limited to
determination of fact whether landlady was a widow or circumstances which had been
enumerated in said section which would include need of legal heirs of deceased who had
retired from service–Widow and one of sons of deceased landlord having proved their
personal bona fide need in respect of premises, they were entitled to get premises
vacant–Appeal allowed. PLJ 1999 Karachi 727
S. 14-Tenant–Ejectment of–Refusal of–Challenge to–Clause (b) and (I) of Lease
Agreement show that appellant has not only agreed to reniew lease for a further period of
five years or more on terms and conditions to be mutually settled between parties, but has
also agreed to waive his right to seek ejectment on ground of personal use–Held: It can
safely be concluded that appellant had bartered away his personal rights for valuable
consideration and for improvement of his property which was done by respondent having
spent a substantial amount over Rs. 700000/- and there is no reason to interfere with
findings of Rent Controller–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 51
S. 14–Tenant–Ejectment of–Rejection of application–Challenge to- -Two separate
tenancies both of same character, i.e. residential or commercial, cannot be got vacated by
recourse to section 14 of Ordinace–Held : Appellants being entitled to get only one shop
vacated, appeal relatable to rent case earlier instituted, is to be accepted thereby
exhausting right claimable under Section 14 of Ordinance and making it inexercisable in
respect of other shop–Civil Appeal No. 64-K allowed and other appeal dismissed. PLJ 1991
SC 416
S. 15 & 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default in payment of rent–Ground of–It is well
established law that it is statutory obligation of tenant to pay rent each month to
landlord–Appellant failed even to prove that there was any agreement between parties to
collect rent after every 6 or 7 months–Burden of proving this fact lies on appellant to show
that he had paid rent but same was refused by respondent–Held : Appellant had committed
wilful default in payment of rent–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 833

S. 15 & 5–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default–Ground of–Challenge to–Before present case
respondent had filed a rent case for eviction of appellant on ground of default in payment of
rent, being Rent case No. 16/85, but, during pendency of that case, parties entered into a
new tenancy agreement whereby rate of rent was revised from Its. 3500/- per month to Rs.
4,250/- per month–In view of new agreement, respondent withdrew aforesaid rent
agreement–Later on appellant took position that new tenancy agreement was not binding
and insisted on paying rent at old rate–Respondent again approached for eviction of
appellant–Held : Appellant by its conduct having made respondent act upon new agreement
cannot now be heard saying that said agreement was not binding on it–Appellant instead of
Rs. 4,250 per month paid rent at old rate of Its. 3500/- per month–Default in payment of rent
is apparent–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 760
S. 15 (2) (v)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Refusal of–Challenge to–Whether tenant was liable to
eviction on ground of nuisance–Question of–Nuisance as a concept has not been defined in
Ordinance, but speaking broadly, it includes any hurt or injury or something which annoys or
hurts or which is offensive to senses or obtrusive in some way–In this sense, denial of
relationship of landlord and tenant, where admittedly one existed, would constitute
nuisance–However, Section 15(2) (v) contemplates only such activities as are causing
nuisance to neighbours–In this case, landlady is also a neighbour of tenant–Held: In
peculiar circumstances of this case, tenant is also liable to be evicted on ground of
nuisance–Eviction ordered on grounds of bonafide personal requirement, material
impairment of value or utility of premises and nuisance. PLJ 1994 Karachi 325
S. 15 (2) (vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bonafide need–Contention that Respondent is
a school teacher and her husband is doing a job–Appellant has not produced any proof of
it–No such suggestion was made in cross examination– PLJ 1996( Karachi) 156
S. 15 (2), (xii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–personal bonafide need–Contention that rented
premises are not suitable for, boutique business as entire area is surrounded by 22 motor
workshops–Helds: It has come on record quite unchallenged and unrebutted, that area in
question is well known for tailoring shops and ladies frequently visit these shops–There are
more than 14 tailoring shops 3 are boutiques, two of which are being run by ladies–Appeal
dismissed– PLJ 1996( Karachi) 156 1984, CLC 71, 1993 CLC 505, 1993 CLC 270, 1993
CLC 2272, 1993 MLD 399, 1993 MLD 386, 1991 MLD 1377, 1993 MLD 876, 1994 CLC
1875, PLD 1994 Karachi 209 ref
S. 15 and 10–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default–Ground of–Appeal against ejectment
order–Rent was sent through money order for the month of September and October on 14-
11-1998, wfien land lord refused to receive money order same was deposited in
court–Whether it is default or not ?–Question of–When oral evidence is contrary to
documentary evidence documentary evidence is taken to be conclusive–Learned Rent
Controller ignored provisions of S. 10–Findings given by him is contrary to documentary
evidence as such learned Rent Controller has come to a erroneous conclusion while
passing impugned order which is set aside appeal is allowed–Held : No default has been
committed–Appeal allowed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 208
S. 15 Tenant–Ejectment of–Refusal of–Challenge to–Conversion of use of . property from

residential to commercial–Ground of–Although approved plan of building clearly showed
premises as residential, yet appellant No. 1, in his cross-examination, has admitted that on
date of gift in appellant’s favour, premises was being used by respondents as commercial
premises–Held: Neither previous landlord having been examined on this question nor there
being any explanation for not producing him, this ground must fail. PLJ 1993 Karachi 33
S. 15(2) (vii) read with S. 15-A–Ejectment application–Acceptance of–Appeal against–If a
power of attorney holder is empowered to file unspecified cases and applications that would
impliedly mean and include rent cases and rent applications–No question was put to
respondents pertaining to validity of power of attorney–If pith and substance of evidence is
clear and leads to a particular fact, then technicalities of English grammar which do not
govern judicial proceedings can be ignored–It has been specifically pointed out by land
ladies that they need premises for establishing maternity home and hospital–Their such
requirement is supported by evidence on record–Appellant failed to establish any cogent
grounds regarding personal need of land ladies which was established by them in their
evidence–If crafty landlords obtain order of possession on ground of personal need, do not
occupy and convert premises for such need, tenant can apply for restoration of
premises–Provisions of S. 15-A in this respect are mandatory and provide complete check
on landlord–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 1044
S. 15(2) (vii) read with S. 15-A–Ejectment application–Acceptance of–Appeal against–If a
power of attorney holder is empowered to file unspecified cases and applications that would
impliedly mean and include rent cases and rent applications–No question was put to
respondents pertaining to validity of power of attorney–If pith and substance of evidence is
clear and leads to a particular fact, then technicalities of English grammar which do not
govern judicial proceedings can be ignored–It has been specifically pointed out by land
ladies that they need premises for establishing maternity home and hospital–Their such
requirement is supported by evidence on record–Appellant failed to establish any cogent
grounds regarding personal need of land ladies which was established by them in their
evidence–If crafty landlords obtain order of possession on ground of personal need, do not
occupy and convert premises for such need, tenant can apply for restoration of
premises–Provisions of S. 15-A in this respect are mandatory and provide complete check
on landlord–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 1044
S. 15(2)(ii) read with Section 8–Tenant–Ejectment of–Refusal of–Challenge to–Default in
payment of rent–Ground of–Rent Controller can determine fair rent on application of
landlord under Section 8 of Ordinance–Power to increase rent is vested with Rent
Controller, and landlord cannot unilaterally increase rent despite order passed by taxation
authorities for enhancement of taxes–Rent cannot remain stationary for ever and by
passage of time, due to rise in cost of construction/repair charges and imposition of new
taxes, reasonable increase in rent, as permissible under law, is always justified but for this
purpose, proceedings shall have to be initiated before Rent Controller under Section 8 of
Ordinance–Held: No default was committed by respondent and finding of Rent Controller is
perfectly correct, to which no exception can be taken. PLJ 1993 Karachi 81
S. 15(2)(ii)–Ejectment of tenant–Appeal against–Ground of default–Contention that on

refusal to accept rent by respondent appellant sent rent from May to July, 1988, through
money order which was also refused, then he deposited rent in court on 4.9.1988–Appellant
failed to prove that he had tendered rent to respondent and photostat copy of money order
coupon, which did not bear any endorsement from postman with regard to refusal, also
remained unproved–Grace period in absence of agreement for date of payment being sixty
days, according to Section 15(2)(ii) of Ordinance, stood expired–Appeal dismissed. PLJ
1993 Karachi 64
S. 15(2)(ii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default–Ground of–Contended that amount of security
deposited by him with landlord could have been adjusted towards arrears of rent for
disputed period–Tenancy agreement between parties showed that fixed/security deposit
could only be returned to tenant when he would hand over vacant possession of premises
after adjustment of amount of damages, if any caused to the premises but such security
amount could not be adjusted towards arrears of rent–Tenant who failed to pay or tender
rent was rightly ordered to be ejected on ground of default. PLJ 1999 Karachi 106
S. 15(2)(ii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default–Ground of–Tenant on refusal of rent collector
appointed by landlord to receive rent tendered rent through pay orders which remained
undelivered due to some reasons–Tenant, deposited rent in Court, but Rent Controller
ordered ejectment of tenant on ground of default in payment of rent–Payment of rent having
been proved through evidence on record, judgment of Rent Controller based on conjectures
and surmises was set aside. PLJ 1999 Karachi 567
S. 15(2)(iii) & (vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need properly applied at trial
level–Tenant had assailed ejectment order passed against him on grounds of default in
payment of rent and personal bona fide need of landlord contending that examinations-in-
chief of parties through their affidavits-in-evidence, were signed before Oath
Commissioner–Normally, affidavits for immediate use in Court were to be sworn in either in
Court or before officer authorised by Court to administer oath–Deposition/cross-examination
was recorded without administration of oath and parties were not recalled nor re-affirmed-
Evidence having not been legally recorded, Appellate Court had rightly remanded case to
Trial Court for recording legal evidence and for passing appropriate order. PLJ 1998
Karachi 693
S. 15(2)(iii) (a)–Sub-tenancy–Question of–Landlord had claimed that shop in question was
sublet by original tenant without his consent- enant had deposed that alleged sub-tenant
was his son-in-law and also his business associate–Alleged sub-tenant who was a party in
ejectment proceeding was also examined in Court and he re-affirmed statement of original
tenant–Subletting not established. PLJ 1998 Karachi 710
S. 15(2)(iii)(a)–Tenancy under name of General Rubber Company–Tenants changed their
name to General Trading Company–Subleting rented premises by tenant
company–Allegations of–Appellant rented tenement to General Rubber Trading
Company–Same was converted into private limited company and got same registered as
such Memorandum of Articles of Association has been placed on record–Partners have
only become its Directors otherwise neither its character nor status has
changed–Admittedly, Managing Director of appellant has never denied to consent to

conversion of partnership into Limited Company nor filed any affidavit in evidence or
appeared before court–Moreover, conversion took place in year, 1977 and according to
appellant he came to know in 1983, but filed rent case in July, 1985 after gap of 8
years–This shows that appellant after loosing first round of litigation has attempted to create
false ground of sub-letting–Otherwise landlord was regularly withdrawing rent from
court–Held : Appellant has entirely failed to prove case of eviction on any of grounds. PLJ
1998 Karachi 425
S. 15(2)(iii)(a)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Whether acceptance of rent by
respondents from appellant after creation of partnership concern from proprietorship
concern would amount to waiver of rights of respondents to evict appellant–Question
of–Respondents were never informed by appellant or by co-partners that tenancy of
proprietorship concern was changed to partnership concern and at no time request was
made to respondents even for change of receipt in name of partnership firm–It has also not
been denied in cross-examination by appellant that respondents for first time came to know
in October, 1986 that partnership was created in place of sole proprietorship
concern–Appellant admitted that cheque for month of October, 1986 was sent but it was
refused and was returned to appellant on ground that cheque was issued by partnership
concern and not by proprietorship concern–Held: There is no waiver or acquiescence on
part of respondent. PLJ 1996 Karachi 189
S. 15(2)(iii)(a)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Whether appellant, the original tenant,
by his entering into Partnership business with his two brothers created tenancy right/interest
of other partners in premises–Question of–Appellant in rebuttal has not produced
partnership deed to show that no right, title and interest was created in favour of co-partners
in respect of tenancy right of premises and it exclusively remained with him–Held: Mere fact
that appellant also remained in possession of premises alongwith his co-partners would not
mean that there has not been contravention or breach of terms of lease Deed or provisions
of section 15(2)(iii)(a). PLJ 1996 Karachi 189
S. 15(2)(iii)(a)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Whether rent deposited 1y partnership
concern would not amount to due tender by appellant according to law–Question of–It has
been admitted by appellant that after refusal of rent by respondent, appellant did not deposit
rent in proprietorship concern–Rent tendered by one of partners of partnership concern
would be a rent from business of partnership concern and not from proprietorship concern.
Held: Appellant was defaulter under law–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996
S. 15(2)(iii)(a)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Whether rent deposited 1y partnership
concern would not amount to due tender by appellant according to law–Question of–It has
been admitted by appellant that after refusal of rent by respondent, appellant did not deposit
rent in proprietorship concern–Rent tendered by one of partners of partnership concern
would be a rent from business of partnership concern and not from proprietorship concern.
Held: Appellant was defaulter under law–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 189
S. 15(2)(iii)(a)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge to–Subletting–Ground of–It is
established on record that appellant, some time before institution of case, had handed over
possession of demised premises to one Nasim and is realising rent from him–Held: There is

no reason to interfere with findings of Rent Controller on issue of subletting of demised
premises–Appeal dismissed. PIJ 1993 Karachi 473
S. 15(2)(iii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Subletting–Ground of–Shops which were let out to tenant
in his personal name, were handed over by tenant on lease to private companies which had
separate legal entity—Such leasehold rights having been assigned by tenant to private
companies without permission of landlord constituted sub-letting—Subletting proved–Held :
Tenant was liable to be ejected on that ground. PLJ 1998 Karachi 861
S. 15(2)(v)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Refusal of–Challenge to–Nuisance–Ground of–Under
Section 15(2)(v) of Ordinance, a tenant can be evicted if he has indulged in such activities
as are causing nuisance to neighbours–In this case, it is alleged by appellant that his tenant
has become a nuisance for him and his family members–Appellant has not stated that
respondent became nuisance for neighbours–Held: Even if evidence of appellant is
accepted, it would not make out a ground for eviction in terms of Section 15(2)(v) of
Ordinance. PLJ 1993 Karachi 305
S. 15(2)(vi) read with Section 15(4)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Appeal
against–Reconstruction of building–Ground of–Contention that on date of filing of rent case,
approved plan was not in existence, therefore, eviction on basis of said approval was not
warranted by law–Held: Appellant will be entitled to be put in possession of shops (after
reconstruction) at same location but quantum of area of shops shall be in discretion of Rent
Controller to be determined after taking into consideration location and type of new building
and needs of appellant who is running a restaurant in said shops–Execution postponed till
decision of appeals of other tenants. PLJ 1992 Karachi 442 PLD 1986 Kar. 393, PLD 1972
Lah. 711, 1981 SCMR 782, 1985 CLC 1669;1981 SCMR 924, 1983 SCMR 391 and PLJ
1989 Peshawar 66 (DB) ref.
S. 15(2)(vii)–Bona fide personal need–Essentials–Landlord who required premises in good
faith for his occupation and use or for occupation and use of his spouse and children and
his families, had to show that he required premises in good faith and not on a mere whim or
fancy–If such factors could be established by landlord, there would be no need of any
further enquiry as to whether premises was too large for landlord’s need–Sufficiency and
insufficiency of accommodation desired by landlord was a matter of individual taste and
choice with which Court of law was not to interfere–What had to be seen was whether
landlord had approached Court with clean hands and with bona fide intent– PLJ 1999
Karachi 779
-S. 15(2)(vii)–Bona fide personal need–Need for grandchildren–Jurisdiction–Contention that
word “child” appearing in S. 15(2)(vii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 did not
include grandchildren of landlord–Validity–If a landlord had married children living with him,
it would be unjust to contend that need of his grandchildren could be
disregarded–Interpretation of S. 15(2)(vii) to the effect that it excluded grandchildren of
landlord who were living with him, would not only be illogical, but would be quite
burdensome and harsh as far as bona fide need of landlord and his children living with him
was concerned- PLJ 1999 Karachi 779
S. 15(2)(vii)–Eject of tenant–Appeal against–Personal requirement of landlady–Ground

of–Whether personal need was proved–Question of–Respondent landlady living abroad
wanted to come back alongwith her two grown-up daughters and a minor son with intention
to provide them proper education and up-bringing her children according to their own
culture, custom and traditions and to get suitable match for her marriageable daughters–Her
attorney was examined and he has supported contentions of landlady–It cannot be said that
landlady has filed rent case with ntalafide intention–Very facts on face of it speak of good
faith of landlady–Held: Respondent through her attorney, has proved her bonafide
requirement in good faith–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 56
S. 15(2)(vii)–Tenant.–Ejectment of-Bona fide personal need–Ground of–In order to prove
bona fide. landlord who required premises, was to he examined on oath and then subject to
cross-examination to verify authenticity of such need–Landlord had to give details of
requirements and grounds as to why that, particular premises was suitable–Only attorney of
landlord was examined who had not given any detail of business to be carried out in
premises in question and suitability of premises for the same–None of the respondents was
examined on oath to prove their bona fide need–For getting premises vacated for bona fide
need onus lay on landlord–Rent Controller was not justified to hold that. landlord had
proved his bona fide need. PLJ 1997 Karachi 986
S. 15(2)(vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of :Personal bona fide need–Ground of- Looking at the
number of landlord’s family and accommodation which was already in his possession, it
could be made out that same was insufficient for his personal use and he needed further
accommodation to enable him to shift from Government quarter after his retirement from
service–Personal bona fide need of landlord had fully been established in circumstances
PLJ 1998 Karachi 791
S. 15(2)(vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Bona fide personal need–Ground of–Good
faith–Proof–Good faith in requiring premises for personal bona fide need, was to be
established on record as sine qua non before passing of ejectment order by Rent
Controller–Until and unless landlord establishes on record with cogent evidence that
premises in question was needed bona fidely for purpose stated in ejectment application,
ejectment of tenant could not be granted–It will be incumbent upon landlord to establish
good faith through evidence which is essential requirement for ejectment of tenant relating
to personal need–Landlord has failed to establish his need or requirement–Appeal
dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 1021
S. 15(2)(vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default. in paymment of rent–Ground of–No written
agreement. of tenancy existed between parties, but landlord in ejectment application as well
as in affidavit-in-evidence had specifically asserted that there was mutual agreement
between parties according to which rent of premises was payable on or before 5th of each
due month which fact was not denied by tenant—Mutual oral agreement between parties
which was not denied by tenant—in view of mutual oral agreement with regard to mode of
payment. of rent, rent of premises was to be paid on or before 5th of each due month which
meant. that grace period for payment. of rent ‘as 15 days and rent. of each month was to be
paid on or before 20th of each due month. but tenant, had paid rent beyond that.
period–Tenant, committed wilful default and was liable to be ejected. PLJ 1997 Karachi 873

S. 15(2)(vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge to–Appellants have admitted that
respondent is living in a rented house–It is on record that husband of respondent, has
severed all his connections with his ex-employer in Abu Dhabi–It is inalienable right of an
owner to use his property in any way he likes–Respondent has stood test of cross-
examination and her evidence has not been shattered–Held: Respondent has been able to
prove her requirement of demised premises being bonafide–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1994
Karachi 356
S. 15(2)(vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need—Essential
ingredients–Landlord had option to seek ejectment for personal use, but personal use was
clipped with words “good faith”–In order to ascertain whether “good faith” was established
Court had to probe record and to find out whether honest intentions were available and
spelled out from record–Apart from honesty it was also to be ascertained that there was
absence of malice and absence of design to defraud or to seek an • unconscionable
advantage=-If honest belief was lacking and good faith of landlord was not established
through record, which was condition precedent to get order of ejectment as personal bona
fide use—Rent Controller may dismiss ejectment application of landlord. PLJ 1998 Karachi
877
S. 15(2)(vii)-Tenant-Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need–Ground of Prerogative of
landlord to decide which shop was required by him fen personal need–Mere fact that during
pendency of ejectment petition in respect of shop in question one shop was given on rent by
landlord, would not disentitle him from his personal nerd–Tenant having failed to prove any
mala fides on the part of landlord and landlord leaving established genuineness of his need.
tenant. was liable to be ejected as he wanted to start his own business. PLJ 1997 Karachi
873 1992 MLD 1685; 1993 CLC 412: PLD 1982 SC 465; 1992 SCMR 1152; PLD 1990 SC
394; 1991 CLC 1047; 1995 SCMR 1973 330; SCMR 185; 1968 SCMR 1087 and 1986
SCMR 1981 ref.
S. 15(2)00–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge to–Default in payment of
rent–Ground of–There is confusion about date of commencement of each month’s tenancy
as per respondent’s evidence–Tenancy appears to be commencing from first of each
calendar month–There is no documentary evidence about payment of pugree of Rs. 3000/-
and appellant has produced receipts which show that he has paid rent till
18.2.1987–Disputed period of default is from February 1987 till 30.6.1987–There is no
documentary proof about payment of rent for disputed period–Appellant failed to prove that
he had sent rent for this period through money order–Practice of payment of accumulated
rent was not pleaded in written statement, and even if such practice is established, it does
not place appellant in an advantageous position–Held: No special circumstances have been
pleaded or proved to entitle appellant to discretion being exercised in his favour–Appeal
dismissed. PLJ 1992 Karachi 436 PLJ 1981 SC 214, 1986 SCMR 587, 1981 SCMR 93,
PLD 1982 Karachi 188, PLD 1965 Lah. 23, PLD 1971 Kar. 747, PLD 1985 Karachi 47, 1986
CLC 1487, 1985 MLD 1151 and 1991 CLC 1729 discussed.
S. 15(2)–Word “requirement” used in clause (vi) of subsection (2) of S. 15 of Rent
Ordinance–Would it mean that requirement should be bona fide and in absence of same

ejectment could not be ordered by Rent Controller–Only requirement in case of
reconstruction of property would be production of sanction and approved plan of
reconstruction of building and Rent Controller has to be satisfied as to building plan and
sanction produced to be genuine and validly issued by competent abthority–There is no
question of proving good, faith on part of landlord in case possession of property is sought.
on ground of rcconstruition of building on site–Held: Question of good faith would not be
relevant for deciding ejectment application on ground of reconstruction of building under
provision of Rent Ordinance. PLJ 1996 Karachi 693
S. 15(4)–Restoration to possession of same area in new building–Protection of
tenant–Learned counsel for landlord stated that tenant could be accommodated in said
shop or shops of near about area by removing walls in between pillars and beams,
therefore, spirit and object of provisions of law would not be flouted or contravened and
apprehensions of tenant are ill founded–It could be safely said that landlords would so far
as possible, accommodate tenant in possession of such area in new building as possible
and would not prejudice tenant in respect of his rights under law. PLJ 1996 Karachi 693
S. 15-A–In rent matters safeguards for tenants–Where landlord obtains possession of
rented premises on ground of personal requirement and fails either to occupy same or
relets it to any person other than tenant, then tenant has been given a right to approach
Rent Controller for punishing landlord–Rent Controller under S. 15-A of Ordinance may put
tenant back into possession of same premises. PLJ 1999 Karachi 705
S. 15–Bona fide personal need of landlord–Attraction of principle of res judicata (S. 11
CPC)–Where some earlier case against tenant was filed on same ground, there could not
be a bar for seeking eviction on same ground as principle of res judicata was not attracted.
PLJ 1999 Karachi 705
S. 15–Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), S. 12(2)–Relationship of landlord and
teant–Question of=-Suit for specific performance on basis of agreement to sell was pending
between landlord and appellant, son of tenant–Prior to decision of civil suit, Rent Controller
ordered ejectment of tenant–During pendency of execution application by landlord,
appellant moved an application under S. 12(2) C.P.C. which was dismissed by Rent
Controller=-Status–Appellant did not apply to Rent Controller for joining him as one of
parties–Question of title between appellant and landlord was yet to be decided by
Court–Appellant could not be allowed to protract proceedings by seeking aid of provisions
contained in S. 12(2) of C.P.C. on baseless allegations of fraud and
misrepresentation–Such an application having been filed to abuse process of Court, Rent
Controller had rightly dismissed application. PLJ 1999 Karachi 717
S. 15–Ejectment of tenant on ground of personal need–Acceptance of ejectment petition by
Rent Controller–Challenge to–It has been proved that except two shops, entire building of
respondent/landlord is being used for educational purposes -It is also on record that though
school is managed by registered society, wife of respondent/landlord who is secretary of
society is in fact running entire affairs of school–It, is for her to decide to expand educational
activity and if she so decides and additional space is required for that purpose,
respondent/landlord is entitled to get vacant possession of demised premises–It is evident I

hat if space included in shops becomes part of school that. will definitely provide more
accommodation and convenience to school–Held : Rent Con! roller was right in holding that.
demised premises are required in good faith by respondent–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1998
Karachi 451
S. 15–Ejectment–Appellants have got clear and valid title over disputed
property–Relationship of landlord and tenant exists between parties–Since, respondents
admittedly did not pay any rent, even after service of notice, default stands proved–Held :
Respondents are not entitled to any concession or right to prove justification of their default
in payment of rent–Appeal allowed with direction to respondents to put appellants in vacant
possession within 4 (four) months. PLJ 1996 Karachi 419
S. 15–Plea of subletting–Proof–Landlord had failed to show that out of two tenements which
had been subletted by tenant and what rent was being realised by tenant for alleged
subletting–Rent Controller had ordered ejectment of tenant–There was no lawful evidence
in support of pleas raised by landlord, except pleadings and same could not take place of
evidence, and, as such, no subletting was proved by landlord–Ejectment order passed by
Rent Controller was set aside. PLJ 1999 Karachi 826
S. 15–Subletting–Where landlord had alleged subletting and accepted rent from tenants
without protest for quite a long time, allegation of subletting was not proved–Onus to prove
such plea is on landlord and not on tenant– PLJ 1999 Karachi 826
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Claim of landlord was about shop situated on
plot No. E-10, eviction by court was directed only for same–Taking advantage of fact that
both these shops were connected whether respondent/landlord can seek eviction from shop
situated on plot No. E/11 too on basis of aforesaid order when in fact plot No. E/11 was in
the name of son of landlord–Question of–On basis of ejectment application, Rent
Controller’s order and order in appeal respondent is entitled to claim eviction of appellant
from shop situated on plot No. E/10 only and not that situated on plot No. E/11–Since case
of appellant is that by removing common wall between two shops situated on plot No. E/10
and E/11, he converted these into one joint shop, respondent would be entitled to eviction of
appellant only from that portion of said joint shop as is situated on plot No. E/10 and not
from portion on plot E/11–Case is remanded to determine whether any portion of shop from
which appellant is sought to be evicted is situated on plot No. 11/E as alleged, for this
purpose parties will be allowed to produce evidence–Case remanded–Orders accordingly.
PLJ 1998 Karachi 195
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Contention that Applicant/ Respondent alleged
that appellants have un-authorisedly occupied store-room attached with shop, Rent
application was not maintainable–Rent case would not have been maintainable to the
extent of said godown, but since opponent/appellant denied said position Rent case is
maintainable in view of admission of opponent regarding tenancy of entire premises as one
unit–Held: Finding of Rent Controller does not call for any interference. PLJ 1996 Karachi
177
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Contention that approval of site plan has been
withdrawn, Appellants cannot be ejected from premises due to non-execution of agreement

by landlord with tenant before its approval–Withdrawal of approval of plan has already been
declared as illegal–Since plan is already got approved and work has also been started at
site, there can be no doubt in bonafide of landlord in erecting new building in place of old
one–Held: Finding of Rent Controller is maintainable. PLJ 1996 Karachi 177
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Default and Personal bonafide need–Grounds
of–There was default in payment of rent from April, 1988, till filing of a case which was fully
established–Contention that respondent had other equally suitable premises available for
his purpose and that he was not entitled to obtain vacant possession for use of a limited
company which is a distinct person in law–It was upto respondent to choose a place where
he wishes to conduct his business and, secondly, because “Conipany” for which respondent
required premises in question is infact a sole proprietory concern–Appeal dismissed. PLJ
1996 Karachi 597
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Default–Ground of–Whether an agreement of
sale entitles tenant not to pay rent–Question of–Even if it is accepted for arguments sake
that an agreement of sale was in existence, still appellant was bound to pay rent–Held:
Since appellant failed to pay rent from July 1984, finding of Rent Controller on issue of
default is not open to exception. PLJ 1990 Karachi 442
S. 15–Tenant-Ejectment of–Appeal against–If a landlord seeks ejectment on ground of
personal use, to prove his good faith is that he should show that he requires same for his
own use or use of his child and that they are not gain fully employed in any other
vocation–Where landlord intends to extend his business, situation would be different as in
such case his being gainfully engaged in very trade or business would not come in his way
in seeking ejectment–Respondent has been able to establish fact that his son is not
gainfully employed or engaged in any vocation at Canada and thus the obvious inference
would be that he would want to start business–There appears to be no denial to wish of
respondent who is a retired police officer to start his own business alongwith his son in
demised premises–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 167
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Personal need–Ground of–Respondent is a
practising advocate and he has testified that disputed premises is required by him for
purpose of his office–Appellant has controverted this fact by stating that respondent owns
number of properties–There is, however, nothing on. record to substantiate it–Held:
Statement of respondent on issue of personal need, appears to be consistent and to some
extent, it gets support from appellant himself–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1990 Karachi 442
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Whether order under section 16(1) could be
made by Rent Controller without holding an inquiry–Rationale behind this Section–Most of
landlords move applications u/s 16 of Ordinance by claiming much more higher rent than
actual rent and Rent Controllers usually pass routine order by directing tenant to deposit
arrears of rent due within stipulated period without holding any inquiry which is requirement
of section 16 of Ordinance–As the consequences of non-compliance of such orders are
always very harming i.e. striking of defence–Holding of summary inquiry is obligatory when
there is dispute between parties on rate of rent–In all such cases if learned Rent Controller
passes order, as has been usually observed, that tenant should deposit rent at rate

demanded by landlord, but landlord should withdraw only that rent which is admitted by
tenant, then such order may not be proper if judged on anvil of equity because firstly it put
tenant under burden of that heavy rent which he was not bound to pay and secondly tenant
is put under mental torture that if he failed to comply with order, his defence would be struck
off–Held: All such defective orders passed U/S. 16(1) of Ordinance which do not reflect
existence of any inquiry, would be unlawful–Held further Although no penalty has been
mentioned against landlord if he violates order passed u/s. 16(3) of Ordinance, yet his
conduct would be fully exposed whether he was interested to receive rent at proper time or
he was interested only to knock out tenant technically who had otherwise best case on
merits. PLJ 1996 Karachi 612
S. 15—Tenant–Ejectment of–Default–Ground of–Contention that words used in agreement
for payment of rent in advance were against provisions of Ordinance–Word advance has no
legal value as according to section 10 of Ordinance, what is important is date when rent
becomes due–Submission is without any substance–Rent becomes payable in terms of
mutual agreement, otherwise rent becomes payable on 10th of month next following month
for which it is due–There was an agreement for payment of rent in advance–Accordingly
rent having not paid within 15 days of expiry of period prescribed by mutual agreement,
appellant had incurred liability of eviction u/S. 15 of Ordinance–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996
Karachi 445
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default–Ground of–Mere fact that suggestion was made by
counsel of tenant that rent was remitted to landlady in July, 1991 for four months, would not
disprove statement of landlady on oath that rent was not paid to her from January, 1991 to
July, 1991–No evidence ocular or documentary was available to rebut testimony of landlady
with regard to non-payment of rent for specified period–Tenant had committed wilful default
in payment of rent. PLJ 1999 Karachi 722
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge of–Default–Ground of–Whether appellant
has committed a wilful and deliberate default in payment of rent–Question of–It has been
proved by respondent/landlord that rent from January till August was not paid/tendered by
appellant/tenant–Rent for month of September and October was deposited in the name of
dead person would not be due tender in eye of law–Held: Appellant was defaulter–Appeal
dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 110
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need–Ground of–Family of landlady
consisted of fifteen members and portion in her possession consisted of two rooms, one
latrine, one bathroom and small courtyard and, as such, same was not sufficient for her
family–Portion in occupation of landlady was in dilapidated condition and said fact was not
challenged by tenant—-Landlady had proved her requirement of PLJ 1999 Karachi 722
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bonafide need–Ground of- Evidence on record had
proved that landlord had not sought eviction of tenant for a wish or on whim–Cogent reason
was given and good faith was apparent in demand for ejectment–Order of ejectment was
upheld. PLJ 1999 Karachi 705
as to prove his personal requirement in good faith only–It is true that there is a difference in
degree of proof with regard to personal requirement in case of commercial premises to one

in respect of residential premises–Landlord is fully corroborated by his son on point of
personal requirement and said fact has not been satisfactorily challenged in cross
examination–Mere fact that landlord’s son is B.Com. therefore he could not run general
provisions store has no substance and merit–‘Tenant cannot dictate landlord to adjust his
son in a particular business or job as it would be prerogative of landlord–So also of his son
to chose vocation as to which trade or profession would be suitable–Appeal dismissed. PLJ
1998 Karachi 4724S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal need–Ground for–Mere fact that in
eviction petition respondent/landlord did not state nature of business which would be carried
on in shop premises would not negate his personal requirement in good faith which has not
be satisfactorily challenged in cross examination of respondent and his sou–lt is not
necessary that person requiring shop premises should also state in eviction petition as to
nature of business which would be opened or would be carried out by him in case
possession is given to him; land lord I
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Prayer for–landlord and tenant–Relationship of–Denial
of–Challenge to–Contention that learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction due to non-
existence of relationship of landlord tenant–Appellant has tried to take advantage of
misdiscription of Respondent in legal notice–Where as appellant himself admitted in reply to
legal notice that he is tenant–Appellant in his written statement and cross-examination
admitted that he is tenant of Respondent–Held, There is relationship of landlord and tenant
between parties and Rent Controller had jurisdiction– PLJ 1996( Karachi) 156
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Suit decreed–Challenge to–Whether respondent requires
premises in question in good faith for personal bonafide use–Question of–Landlady has
decided to stay in her own property rather than in rented premises–No legal obstacle could
come in her way–Choosing of premises for personal bonafide need was prerogative of
landlady–Tenent could not have option to choose as to which place and premises would be
suitable for landlady–Against false plea of a landlord for vacation of rented premises on
ground of personal bonafide need, right of a tenant is protected under S. 15-A of
Ordinance–Held, impugned order is rightly passed–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi
127
S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment on ground of default–Challenge to–Respondent/landlord stated on
oath that he did not receive any rent from January, 1991–According to appellant/tenant he
paid rent in advance upto 14.5.1992, but no receipt was issued to him–It is improbable that
in context of strained relations which existed between parties for quite sometime appellant
would pay so much rent in advance without insisting for receipts. PLJ 1998 Karachi 451
S. 15–Tenent–Ejectment of–Petition for–Personal bonafide requirement for use of
respondent who was engaged to her cousin and her marriage was held up for want of
accommodation–Ground for–Points involved, whether appellant was duly served with notice
of ejectment–Whether learned Controller was right in directing eviction of appellant from
demised premises ex parte–Rent Controller was fully satisfied with mode of service and he
had recorded his satisfaction after examining process server on oath–Similarly, he would be
free not to follow technical provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 –Held: There is no
merit in contention raised on behalf of appellant that he has been condemned

unheard–Held further, ‘ If a party chooses to remain away from court proceedings and to
take advantage of his own negligence and indifference towards court, law would not come
to his rescue–Appeal dismissed- PLJ 1995 Karachi 152
S. 15–Tenent–Ejectment of–Premises required by appellant for use of her
husband–Possession of premises had been handed over to another person–Grounds
for–Appellants husband a retired person wants to set up a small industry–It is an undeniable
right of appellant to increase her family income–Held: Appellant has succeeded in
establishing her case of personal requirement–Possession of disputed plot has been
handed over by respondent to his dealer without written consent of landlord–Held further
Respondent is liable for eviction–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1995 Karachi 146
S. 16 (1) Tenant–Ejectment of–Defence–Striking of–Challenge to–Whether no order under
Section 16 (1) could be made when ejectment is sought on only ground of
subletting–Question of–Held: A bare reading of opening sentence, viz, “where a case for
eviction of tenant has been filed” would show that an exercise in terms of sub-section (1) of
Section 16 of Ordinance, is to be made in every case of eviction filed by a landlord
irrespective of grounds taken therefor. PLJ 1992 Karachi 133
S. 16 (2)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Struck off defence of appellant–Appellant
has failed to deposit arrears of rent and also other dues payable by her in terms of order
passed u/S. 16 (1), no exception can be taken to order impugned in appeal–Appeal is
therefore dismissed in limine. PLJ 1996 Karachi 273
S. 16(1)– Tenant–Ejectment of –Defence–Striking off–Challenge to–There was ample
material before Rent Controller to come to conclusion that receipts denied in totality by
landlady could not ex facie be relied upon and order of tentative deposit with corresponding
prohibition for landlady to affect withdrawals of disputed arrears, was a just, fair and lawful
order — It ought to have been complied with — Appellant being a well-to-do man, period
allowed for deposit of arrears was not short — Held: Order of tentative deposit being
perfectly lawful consequential order striking off defence of appellant for non-compliance,
calls for no interference — Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 279
S. 16(1)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default–Ground of–Relation of landlord and
tenant–Question of–If there was a serious dispute about existence or non-existence of
landlord and tenant relationship between parties Rent Controller should have afforded full
opportunity to both parties and after recording: their-evidence he should have decided this
issue, alongwith other issues at time of final disposal of case–It would have been much
appropriate for Rent Controller to have decide application under Section 16(1) of Ordinance
pending for disposal, alongwith main case–There is no legal and proper finding on the issue
of relationship of land-lord and tenant between parties impugned orders are liable to be set
aside–Rent appeals are allowed and orders of Rent Controller dated 21.5.1998 as well as
order dated 25.2.1997 passed on applications under Section 16(1) of Ordinance are set
aside–Rent Controller is directed to proceed with the cases in terms of directions contained
in the short order dated 25.9.1998–It will be open for Rent Controller to pass a fresh order
on application under Section 16(1) of Ordinance at time of final disposal of rent
case–Appeal allowed PLJ 1999 Karachi 166

S. 16(2) read with Section 18–Tenant–Striking off defence of–Challenge to–Despite notice
under Section 18, appellants did not recognize new owner to be their landlord–They insisted
on Mst. Saeeda Akhtar to be their landlady–Deposit of rent in name of said lady, cannot be
termed as technical default, rather it is contumacious and deliberate–There is no proper
explanation for deposit of rent for January, 1991 on 7-2-1991–Held: Rent Controller was
justified in striking off defence of appellant–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1994 Karachi 346
S. 16(2)–Jurisdiction for striking off defence–Held: Appellate Authority as well as High Court
was competent to exercise powers conferred on Rent Controller under S. 16(2) to strike off
defence for non-compliance of order. PLJ 1999 Karachi 95
S. 16(2)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Application for–Striking of defence of tenant–Challenge
to–Rent Controller seems to have thought that because tenant had herself stated that she
was making deposits in a Misc. Rent Case, she was bound by her statement–No estoppel
arises upon such plea–Held: Impugned order striking off defence of appellant-tentant, was
not in accordance with law and must be set aside–Appeal accepted and case remanded for
proceeding on merits. PLJ 1991 Karachi 423
S. 16(2)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order striking off defence–Challenge to–In his objections to
application under Section 16(2), appellant asserted that he had deposited entire rent but till
April 1992, it was deposited in name of original landlord and after that in name of
respondent–Question for decision is as to whether deposit of rent in wrong name would
amount to non-compliance of rent deposit order passed under Section
16(1)–Preponderance of case law given by Supreme Court appears to be that in case of
technical default, defence should not be struck off–It has not been established by
respondent that deposit of rent in wrong name and in wrong case by appellant, was on
account of his contumacious conduct or bad faith or was ill motivated–Held: Appellant
cannot be held guilty of having intentionally violated rent deposit order–Appeal accepted.
PLJ 1994 Karachi 262 1985 CLC 2862, NLR 1985 Civil 257, PLD 1980 SC 9, PLJ 1993
Karachi 40, 1993 CLC 1823, 1984 CLC 2620, 1992 CLC 366, 1992 CLC 2276, 1987 SCMR
1013 and PLD 1991 SC 711 discussed.
S. 16(2)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Struck off–Defence–Challenge to–Appellant was
continuously depositing rent in Misc. Rent Case No. 720 of 1988 in the name of respondent
prior to tentative rent order passed in Rent case No. 973 of 1993–Appellant instead of
depositing rent as per tentative rent order passed in Rent case No. 973 of 1993 continued
same in misc. rent case, otherwise there is no default in payment of rent–Held: appellant
has committed only a technical default and not wilfull–Held further: Tentative rent order is
also defective–Apps J allowed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 203g Present
S. 16(2)–Tenant–Striking off defence of–Challenge to–There is force in contention that
while passing impugned orders under Section 16(1) & (2) of Ordinance, Rent Controller did
not consider all payments made by appellant–He was supposed to consider all such claims
about payments before ordering deposit of rent–Held: It is for Rent Controller to determine if
amounts of Rs. 46000/-and 16500/- have been paid by appellant to respondent as security
deposit and whether defence of appellant can be struck of in presence of security
deposit—Appeal accepted and case remanded. PLJ 1994 Karachi 351

S. 16(2)–Tentative order of deposit of rent by Rent Controller–Order of tentative deposit
showed that such deposit was “up to September, 1989”- Words “up to” carrying meaning
“as far as”, a particular level, number, amount, point etc.–This, in turn, implies that when it is
stated without anything more, that deposits would be “up to September, 1989” such may or
may not include month of September itself though the months precedings September would
definitely be included–If the intendment behind the phraseology was designed to definitively
include month of eptember as well, a more accurate statement would be, “up to and
inclusive of September, 1989”–To such extent, accordingly, order of deposit, which did not
spell out number of months involved, was indefinite, ambiguous and uncertain–Since
amount expected to be deposited, qua periodically, had thus become uncertain, accruing
dues, in the circumstances for ensuing period also came to suffer with the same infirmity.
PLJ 1999 SC 861
S. 16–Plan of building not duly approved by Authority–Effect–If construction was raised
without any approved plan, same would not only create hurdles but would also increase
menace of encroachment of lands and streets–Plan need not be approved. PLJ 1997
Karachi 951
S. 16–Tenant–Striking off defence of–Challenge to–Whether defence was rightly struck
off–Question of–Since rent application was filed on 13.3.1993, rent due after 13.3.1990 was
not time barred–In his written statement, appellant gave particulars of payments made by
him, but he did not state if he had paid any amount on account of rent of premises in
question–He mentioned in vague terms that he was regularly paying monthly rent–In his
affidavit, he did not claim having deposited any amount in Court in terms of order dated
18.8.1992–Held: Rent Controller was justified in passing impugned order. PLJ 1994 Karachi
401
S. 16–Tentative rent deposit order–Essentials–Vague, uncertain and indefinite tentative rent
orders, capable of more interpretations than one,unless an element of contumaciousness
be patent on the record, should not, ordinarily, be made foundation for striking off defence
of a tenant in terms of Section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, or of
other provisions in pari materia–A tentative order of deposit of rent has to be certain, free of
vagueness and must have an element of definitiveness–In tentative order of deposit of rent
whether due to technical default, striking off tenants defence justified–Question of—If tenant
continued to deposit rent even in other proceedings, rather than in accordance with
tentative rent orders in main rent cases, without carrying any patent contumaciousness and
resulting upon circumstances lacking any obvious wilfulness to disregard orders–Held:
Tenant having been out of pocket to the extent of such erroneous, but bona fide, deposits
could be purged of technical default, if he was otherwise found, in effect, in substance and
‘in content to have discharged his part of obligations- Such rule being sound, applied to a
penal visitation in the way of striking off a tenant’s defence. PLJ 1999 SC 861
S. 17–Tenant–Ejectment of–Application for–Withdrawal of–Costs–Whether could be
awarded–Question of–Section 17 provides that “where Controller is satisfied that any
application made by landlord, for eviction of tenant, is frivolous or vaxatious, he may direct
that compensation not exceeding 10 times the monthly rent, be paid by such landlord to

tenant”–In this case, application moved by appellant for ejectment cannot be said to have
been filed vaxatiously or was a frivolous one, simply on *round that she had entered into an
agreement for sale with another party–Held: Rent Controller has no power to award cost to
other party either by disposing off application on merits or dismissing same for non-
prosecution or its restoration or on allowing withdrawal of ejectment application–Appeal
accepted. PLJ 1990 Karachi 433
S. 18–Tenant–Ejectment of–Case of–Default in payment of rent–Ground of–Whether
opponents have defaulted in payment rent intentionally–Question of–It is evident from
applicants letter that they had insisted opponent to vacate premises within three months
and even in clear terms informed latters that advance payment of un-expired period would
be returned to them–When they made their intention clear to return advance rent it could
not be expected from them that they would have accepted current and future rent–In these
circumstances, Opponents were justified in depositing rent in court–Held : No default in
payment of rent was committed PLJ 1996 Karachi 981
S. 18–Tenant–Ejectment of–Case of–Personal bonafide need–Ground of–Whether
premises are required by applicants in goods faith–Question of–Applicants had purchased
property with knowledge of legal rights vested in opponents by virtue of lease deed–Held :
Eviction application against opponents on personal bonafide need was pre-mature. PLJ
1996 Karachi 981
S. 19(2)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Failure to submit written reply–Ex-parte proceedings
against–Whether Rent Controller could recall ex-parte order–Question of–Ex-parte order
passed by Rent Controller can he recalled if it is found that notice was not properly served
on respondent or he could not file written statement because of some plausible ground–In
this case there was unrebutted affidavit of Advocate that file of case was misplaced and as
such written statement could not .he submitted within time–Held: On basis of unrchuttcd
affidvit, Rent Controller ought to have allowed appellant to file his written. statement—Held
Farther: ‘Even otherwise, equity and natural justice demand that no one should be
condemned unheard–Appeal accepted and case remanded for proceeding on merits. PLJ
1994 Karachi 254
S. 19(4) read with Art. 134 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984–Production of documents in
Court by departmental officials–Right of cross-examination refused by Rent
Controller–Challenge to–Perusal of application of landlord would show that Deputy
Controller of Building Town Planning was summoned through Controller to produce
documents who in compliance of notice appeared before Controller and produced
documents–Said officials could not be said to be witness of respondents/landlords as they
were called to produce documents as same were issued by them and came from their
custody being representative of competent authority under law–Both officials have not filed
affidavits and right to cross examine witness has been given only when witness has filed
affidavit, as affidavit is always to be on oath, whereas said officials have neither filed
affidavit nor were administered oath but they only produced said documents–Held: Learned
Rent Controller rightly disallowed cross-examination to learned counsel for appellant. PLJ
1996 Karachi 693

S. 2 (a) & (i) read with Section 16–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge to–Whether
hiring charges for fixtures can be treated as rent for purposes of passing orders under
Section 16–Question of–Word “building” has been explained in Section 2(a) to be any
building or part thereof together with all fittings and fixures therein–In this way, fittings and
fixtures go with building–Held: In view of statutory provisions, hiring charges for fixtures in a
demised premises, are part of rent and are covered by definition of “rent” given in Section
2(i) of Ordinance. PLJ 1994 Karachi 351
S. 2 (g) Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal need–Ground of–Challenge to–Contention that
requirement for landlord’s brother and sister would not come under “personal use” as
defined in Section 2(g) of Rent Ordinance–It is true that brother and sister are not included
in the category of family members as defined in Section 2(g) of Rent Ordinance but when
brother and sister are joint owners of property for which ejectment is asked for, they would
be asking for ejectment for personal requirement as owner therefore would be entitled to
seek eviction of their property. PLJ 1997 Karachi 754
S. 2(f)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Relationship of landlord and tenant if not
prove–Effect–Landlord sought eviction of appellant relying upon agreement of tenancy but
to that agreement wherein respondent was not a party and executant was this father who
was said to be his attorney while dealing with appellant–Said attorney signed agreement as
owner of house and issued rent receipts under his signatures–Rent Controller found
respondent to be owner and consequently passed order for ejectment of appellant–No
evidence was available to the effect that respondent’s father was acting as his attorney
while dealing with appellant, he neither let out premises to him nor did he ever act as
landlord within the meaning of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979–Respondent
proclaimed himself as landlord and his father as his attorney–Relationship of landlord and
tenant being non-existent between parties, ejectment proceedings were not maintainable.
PLJ 1998 Karachi 120
S. 21 read with O. 9 R. 13 of CPC–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge to–Landlady
filed ejectment application against tenant on ground that she needed premises in good faith
for bonafide personal use for herself and for her son–Summons was issued to
appellant/tenant who appeared through counsel and case was adjourned for filing written
statement–Non appeared for appellant/tenant and written statement was also not
filed–Affidvit.-in-exparte proof was filed and ejectment application was
allowed–Appellant/Tenant filed an application under order 8 rule 13 CPC which was
dismissed–Contention raised by learned Council for appellant that notice before issuance of
writ of possession was not given, therefore, his ejectment was illegal has no merit and
substance–Appellant has got up from his sleep after expiry of seven months from date of
passing order of ejectment–There is nothing on record to show as to what prevented him or
his counsel from making any enquiry from office of Rent Controller to know progress and
proceedings of case–Held: Appeal has no merit–Appeal dismissed PLJ 1996 Karachi 55
S. 21 read with S. 15(2) and 18–Ejectment application on ground of default–Dismissal
of–Appeal to–Respondent’s predecessor-in-interest admitted appellant to be legal
representative of original landlady–Appellants were brought on record in first rent case,

therefore, respondents could not be permitted to say that appellants were not legal heirs of
deceased landlady of demised shop premises–As soon as respondents’ predecessor-in-
interest received intimation as per notice dated 31-1-1988 demanding rent from him, rent
should have been tendered to appellants and in case of failure to accept rent, same could
have been sent through money order and in case of its refusal, should have been deposited
in office of Rent Controller—Held : Deposit of rent in name of deceased landlady in office of
Rent Controller would not be due tender of rent–Finding of Rent Controller is not legal,
hence. set aside and appeal allowed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 317
S. 21 read with S. 15(3) and S. 27(2)–Ejectment application on plea of
reconstruction–Decreed to–No construction thereafter–Direction to deliver possession of
portion which was in possession of respondent/tenant–Challenge to–There is no dispute on
point that appellant has not started reconstruction of building within two years of taking over
of possession of premises from respondent–Appellant’s attorney has admitted that he was
running workshop in premises previously occupied by tenant–Respondent did not demolish
existing building construction within prescribed period of six months–Held : No exception
could be taken to finding of Rent Controller–Case filed by respondent/tenant was rightly
decided under Rent Ordinance, 1979–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 738
S. 21 read with S. 15–Tenant–Ejectment on plea of personal bona fide need–Appeal
against–There is nothing on record to show that need of respondent landlady is not based
on good faith. Evidence adduced by her is not malafide or in bad faith–In spite of demand of
payment of rent by respondent, appellants continued to deposit rent in office of Rent
Controller in order to pass hardship and difficulties to landlady which in law could not be
termed to be due tender, therefore appellants committed default in payment of rent from last
notice dated 8-9-1987 till filing of ejectment application–Contention of appellants has no
merit and substance–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1097 Karachi 303
S. 21 read with S. 16(2)–Default in payment of arrears of rent–Ejectment. application
allowed and defence shuck off–Appeal against–Appellant has wilfully and deliberately
defaulted in making payment of arrears as ordered by DB of High Court and Rent Controller
and has also failed to deposit future monthly rent–Appeal dismissed and appellant directed
to handover vacant possession to respondent. PLJ 1997 Karachi 614
S. 21 read with S. 16(2)–Ejectment application–Order for depositing rent and striking of
defence–Challenge to–Rent Controller should have first decided relationship of landlord and
tenant between parties–Order of deposit of rent could only follow thereafter–Appellant had
filed his suit for specific performance of agreement of sale prior to filing of rent application
by respondent–Main issue between parties is with regard to ownership of property–Case
remanded back to Rent Controller with a direction to frame issue in respect of relationship
of landlord and tenant and allow parties a chance to lead their evidence if any on this issue.
PLJ 1997 Karachi 611
S. 21 read with S. 16-Application for ejectment–Tentative order for payment of rent–Non
compliance of–Defence struck off–Appeal to–Appellants tenants were to deposit rent in the
name of respondent/land lady, but they did not comply with said order–Reason stated by
appellants that they could not contact their counsel is an after through as in objections no

such ground was taken and further it could not be considered good cause for condoning
non-compliance of order–Held It was duty of appellant to pursue the proceeding of
case–There has been deliberate and wilful non compliance of order dated 20-5-
1995–Further held : Rent for defaulted period could not he adjusted and applied from
amount of rent deposited in MRC 260 of 1991–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 69
S. 21 read with S. 18–Land lord acquired right of ownership in property through sale
deed–Notice of change in ownership–No reply–Eviclion application for default in payment of
rent and bana fide personal requirement–Acceptance of–Appeal against–Relationship of
landlord and tenant did not come to an end with the execution of sole of an agreement in
favour of appellant as there is no such clause in said agreement–Right and interest, if any,
in his favour is subject to the title of ownership acquired by respondent by virtue of
registered sale deed in his favour–Relationship of landlord and tenant was established with
the service of notice u/S. 18 of Ordinance, 1979–Only a period of 30 days is available to a
tenant for payment of rent after service of notice–Respondent has reiterated his bonafide
requirement of premises for his own use and occupation–This, statement of fact was not
controverted during cross examination–Property owned by wife cannot be treated as
property belonging to husband–There is evidence in rebuttal of assertion of respondent that
he needs shop premises in dispute for his own use and occupation bonafide–Appeal
dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 505
S. 21 read with S. 8–Application for fixation of fair rent–Acceptance of–Challenge to–Case
of respondent for fixation of fair rent was clearly known to appellants–They had cross-
examined respondent on all facts–Application on any one factor given in S. 8 can be
considered–Respondent on oath stated that rent of similar premises in similar/adjoining
locality is about Rs. 5/- per sq Ft.–In cross examination, this assertion of respondent was
not seriously challenged–Held: Rent fixed by Rent Controller is reasonable and just–Appeal
dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 205
S. 21 read with Section 12 (2) and Order 1 rule 10 CPC–Contention of appellant was that in
ejectment proceedings he was not made party although he was co-tenant–Ejectment order
was obtained by respondents by fraud and misrepresentative hence was liable to be set
aside–Actual tenant respondent No. 3 made a petition for leave to appeal against order of
dismissal of appeal, before Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed–Up till then, co-
tenant was not on scene but appeared in execution proceedings after disposal of petition to
leave to appeal by Supreme Court of Pakistan–This all would show that this appellant was
set-up by Respondent No. 3 to obstruct and cause delay in execution of orders lawfully
passed by competent courts–Held: Application was made with object of obstructing
execution of lawful orders–Held further Appellant was not co-tenant at all–Appeal
dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 104
S. 21 read with Section 15(2)(vii)–Ejectment of Tenant–Appeal against–Bonafide
requirement of landladies–Ground of–Once it was established that landlord required
disputed premises in `good faith’, then Rent Controller was left with no other option but to
order eviction of tenant–Demands for increase of rent were made in pursuance of tenancy
agreements, even otherwise, demand of higher rent does not perse cast any doubt about

personal bonafide requirement, if proved independently–Appeals dismissed. PLJ 1993
Karachi 60
S. 21 read with Ss. 10 (3) and 18–Ejectment petition–Acceptance of–Appeal
to–Appellant/tenant even after service of intimation notice ueposited rent in the name of
deceased Mst. Halima Bai so also continued to deposit even after her death, therefore, said
deposit of rent in the name of deceased knowingly, was not legal, hence he was defaulter in
payment of rent–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 530
S. 21 read with Ss. 14 (2) and 15–Suit for ejectment for personal need–Decreed to–Appeal
against–Respondent/Landlord being in occupation of portion of building using the same as
residential would not be entitled to seek eviction for same purpose under provisions of
section 14 against appellant–Rent Controller has allowed eviction under section 14 and has
considered the evidence in the light of said provisions, whereas to entitle the respondent to
evict appellant under section 15, personal requirements of respondent is to be adjudged
keeping in view his good faith as well–Evidence adduced by respondent would not justify
eviction of appellant Impugned order set aside and case remanded to Rent Controller to
frame new issue whether applicant would be entitled to eviction under section 15 and also
to decide case afresh. PLJ 1997 Karachi 746
S. 21(2) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.X:XXIX, Rr. 1 & 2- Powers of
Appellate Court under S. 21(2), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and under
O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C.–Comparison- Appellate Court under Sindh Rented Premises
Ordinance, 1979 could exercise its power in accordance with S. 21(2) of Ordinance which
empowered such Court to grant injunction staying further proceedings or action on the order
of Rent Controller–Such power could not be equated with powers of Civil Court in terms of
O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C.- Where parties were desirous in any other form of injunction that
mentioned in S. 21(2) of Ordinance, they must approach Civil Court for their redress in that
respect. PLJ 1998 Karachi 735
S. 21(3) read with Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (XII of 1979), S.
35–Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 4 and Hyderabad’ Development Authority
Act–Whether Chief Minister has any authority to allot plots under H.D.A. Act–Question
of–Argument that Chief Minister being Chief Executive of Province could allot plots was not
warranted by law–Constitution has specified field of activity of executive and Government
being run by laws and not by men, every action of executive must be backed by law and if
any act of executive was not backed by law then guarantee given in Art. 4 of Constitution
that to be dealt with in accordance with law is an inalienable right of every citizen,would
become meaningless. PLJ 1997 Karachi 951
S. 21-Appeal under S. 21-Delayed appeal-Condonation of delay-Delay not condone-able
under S. 5, Limitation Act (1908)-Appeal dismissed. P L J 1981 Karachi 148
S. 21–Ejectment application for personal need–Dismissal of–Appeal against–There are
material contradictions in statements of respondent and her son–Appellant had expressly
stated that shop which measured 7′ x 10′ did not satisfy his requirement and that shop in
dispute was not suitable than small shop in which he could not open his clinic—The no
evidence from respondent to show that this assertion of blank incorrect. Appellant had

succeeded in proving his personal need tenant had failed in proving any bad faith on his
part–Held It is open to Rent Controller to force landlord to use a particular premises his
personal bonafide need when he prefers other premises in blank vicinity–Preference of
landlord should prevail and not the choice, tenant or choice of Rent Controller–Appeal
allowed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 720
S. 21—Ejectment application on ground of default–Ground of default admitted but
application dismissed–Appeal against–Whether acceptance of defaulted payment of rent
amounts to waiver on part of landlord–Question of–A landlords acceptance of rent paid to
him at irregular intervals does not in any way, show that he does not accept it to be paid
regularly every month, as the reason for receiving delayed payment might be his decency,
his desire to accommodate his tenant, his pre-occupation with his work, hesitation to go to
court of law or his reluctance to incur expenses and hazards of litigation–Tenant cannot be
allowed to take advantage of his own negligence–Premises is a commercial one and
landlady is getting only Rs. 210/- in an area like Tariq Road Karachi, which would be more
pittance—No discretion would be available to trial court once a finding has been arrived in
terms of default–Impugned judgment set aside. PLJ 1998 Karachi 33
S. 21–Ejectment for personal requirement–Appeal against–Death of respondent during
appeal–Effect of–Ejectment order has been passed during life time of original
applicant/landlord and by virtue of said order, the said right became part of estate of
deceased, therefore, said right passed on to his legal representatives who would be
competent and entitled under law to execute and implement the same subject to decision in
appeal. PLJ 1997 Karachi 326
S. 21–Ejectment of Tenant–Appeal against–Appellant did not appear before Controller for
cross examination as such contents of his affidavitin-evidence could not be taken into
consideration, whereas from cross examination of respondent and her son it was not
established that they were in occupation of a portion of house–It is evident that appellant
had knowledge about notices sent to him by respondent–Besides, no ground has been
taken regarding notices–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 546
S. 21–Ejectment of tenant–Personal bona fide need–Ground of–Challenge to–A bonafide
requirement cannot be turned down simply on assumption of tenant that proposed business
could not be carried out profitably in premises in question. PLJ 1996 Karachi 792
S. 21–Ejectment petition–Acceptance of–Challenge to–Whether respondent required
godown premises for personal need in good faith–Question of–In fact appellant/tenant has
admitted in cross-examination that respondent/landlord needed godown premises for his
own need–There is no dispute, that under the law, landlord if is able to prove his need in
good faith, he would be entitled to possession of premises and further difficulties if any of
tenant appellant would also not debar land lord from getting possession–Held : Existence of
bonafide need would be sufficient to order eviction of a tenant, appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996
Karachi 526
S. 21–Ejectment petition–Ground of personal need–Rejection of–Appeal against–A landlord
is given the privilege and prerogative to use his property for self occupation but such
requirement must be manifested in good faith, reasonable, genuine and absolute

requirement–Onus of proof of bonafide requirements is certainly and entirely on
landlord–Lack of reasonableness and justness of case on the part of landlord may quite
clearly suggest and prompt Controller to decline ejectment holding that such requirement
was not bonafide–Mere wish or intention of landlord is not sufficient to give him a right to
evict a tenant or to uproot and terminate tenancy without absolute necessity and justification
for premises–Intention of landlord in any event must be genuine, honest and manifestly
realistic–Mere desire, convenience whim or fancy of landlord would not at all be enough to
show that premises are required in good faith–Appellant failed to make out a case of
ejectment–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 523
S. 21–Eviction application on plea of default in payment and personal bonafide
use–Acceptance of–Appeal against–Appellant had paid rent from 1980 on-ward at
enhanced rate Rs. 100 p.m. as is evident from receipts issued by her—She offered rent at
the rate of Rs. 70 pm, instead of Rs. 100 p.m. to predecessor-in-interest of respondents
who were justified in not accepting it at said rate–Family of respondents/Land-lord consists
of 6 major persons—Presently they are in occupation of only two rooms, which by any
standard are insufficient for their requirements–Held : Default in payment of rent was wilful
and requirement of land lord is bonafide hence, findings of Rent Controller are perfectly
correct–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 1
S. 21–Interlocutory order–Constitutional petition against such order–Maintainability–No
appeal having been provided against interim order under Section 21, Sindh Rented
Premises Ordinance, 1979, High Court dismissed the petition assailing such order with
observations that if Constitutional petition was to be entertained at such stage the very
purpose of S. 21 of the Ordinance would be defeated–Tenant would have opportunity to file
appeal if the final order went against him and then he could raise this ground too. PLJ 1999
Karachi 65
S. 21–Specific Relief Act, S. 42–Ejectment of tenants with observation of Supreme Court
that they will be reinducted after reconstruction of flats–Fresh suit to declare respondents
that they have lost right to reinduction due to non payment of outstanding electricity
Bills–Whether second suit filed on fresh cause of action–Question of–In order to arrive at a
conclusive finding it would be necessary that parties be permitted to lead evidence and to
extract fact as to whether arrears of electricity were outstanding or not–Parties will have to
be subjected to cross-examination as well–Held: Parties may be allowed an opportunity to
lead evidence and bring on record, documents if any, case remanded to rent controller. PLJ
1996 Karachi 387
S. 21–Suit for ejectment–There was a clear default in deposit of rent for munths of August
to October, 1977–In absence of any circumstances to show that appellant was prevented by
superior force from depositing rent, it is difficult to accept contrary view–Appellant neither
suggested to land lord nor his witness that he owned another house–Held : Choice as to in
which house, landlord would like to live, is surely a matter within his prerogative and
discretion–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 432
S. 21—-Tenant–Eject of–Personal bona fide. need–Ground of–Challenge to–Once bonafide
requirement is established it is for landlord to decide if proposed business could be carried

out in that particular premises or not–Neither court nor tenant can suggest to landlord
otherwise. PLJ 1996 Karachi 792
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Contention that in a locality like Solider Bazar,
respondents being ladies, could not run business of General Merchandise–Choice of doing
a particular business depends on many factors such as nature of locality or nature of
business being carried out in other shops in neighbourhood, therefore, if there is any
change in circumstances the nature of business could also be changed–Main point is of
bona fide requirement and if same is established nature of business could be changed at
any time according to circumstances–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 1035
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Contention that landlord do not have resources
to establish business–Lack of resources cannot be a valid ground to negate plea of
personal requirement for bonafide use. PLJ 1996 Karachi 1035
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal bona fide need–Ground of–Admission
by respondent that disputed premises are situated in Pugri fetching area, one cannot resist
impression that prayer for ejectment of appellant was motivated by circumstance, that after
getting same vacated, same may be let out on higher rent and on receipt of handsome
amount by way of Pugri–Held: Impugned order cannot be sustained at law–Appeal allowed.
PLJ 1996 Karachi 215
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal bonafide need–Ground of–A landlord
who desires bonafide to settle and lodge his married daughter alongwith her husband and
children in his property, there is no logical reason to deny this privilege– PLJ 1996 Karachi
218
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal bonafide need–Ground of–High Court
is not inclined to agree with proposition that where a married daughter is financially well-off-
putting up with her husband and children in rented premises she would not be entitled to
avail of property of her father. PLJ 1996 Karachi 218
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal bonafide need–Ground
of–Apprehension of respondent/tenant that after eviction appellant wanted to make money
or earn profit by way of letting out premises for commercial purposes by way of pugri is
repelled–Provisions contained in section 15-A provide a remedy to tenant when premises
got vacated are not used for purpose for which eviction was sought–Appeal allowed. PLJ
1996 Karachi 218
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal bonafide need–Ground of–A landlord
who desires bonafide to settle and lodge his married daughter alongwith her husband and
children in his property, there is no logical reason to deny this privilege– PLJ 1996 Karachi
218
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal bonafide need–Ground of–High Court
is not inclined to agree with proposition that where a married daughter is financially well-off-
putting up with her husband and children in rented premises she would not be entitled to
avail of property of her father. PLJ 1996 Karachi 218
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal bonafide need–Ground
of–Apprehension of respondent/tenant that after eviction appellant wanted to make money

or earn profit by way of letting out premises for commercial purposes by way of pugri is
repelled–Provisions contained in section 15-A provide a remedy to tenant when premises
got vacated are not used for purpose for which eviction was sought–Appeal allowed. PLJ
1996 Karachi 218
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default in payment of rent, personal bona fide need and
impairing utility of premises–Grounds of–Nuisance must be something which could
occasion unpleasant or disagreeable situation–Where nuisance complained of related to
small premises not exceeding 80 sq. yards; persons living in those premises having vehicle
or two vehicles; same were bound to be parked outside premises in question–Congestion
was bound to occur by parking vehicles outside such small houses, but at the same time
magnitude of such nuisance and inconvenience could not be of such nature as to warrant
eviction of tenant–Landlord had not mentioned even default in his evidence–No evidence
was brought on record in support of plea that tenant had converted residential premises into
commercial one–Landlord had failed to substantiate her claim for personal bona fide
need–Judgment of Rent Controller refusing ejectment of tenant on basis of evidence on
record being based on cogent reasons, would not warrant interference in appeal. PLJ 1999
Karachi 189
S. 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge to–Personal use and default in payment of
rent–Ground of–Evidence of Respondents/ landlords is consistent with pleadings and has
been stated on oath that they needed premises in good faith, but tenant has failed to
produce strong rebutting evidence to disprove evidence of landlord–Entire evidence
produced has proved beyond any shadow of doubt that appellants/tenants did not pay rent
for months of March and April and deposited rent of May, after due date therefore
appellant/tenant became defaulter–Held: Appeal is dismissed being incompetent–Appeal
dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 95
S. 21–Trust Property Suit for ejectment on grounds of default/ unpayment and also caused
additions and alterations in disputed premises without permission of trust and causing
sufficient damage to properly diminishing its value–Order to vacate–Appeal against
maintainability of eviction application–Whether attorney of trust properly was properly
authorised to file eviction application–Question of–Eviction application was filed through
duly constituted Attorney and power of Attorney was duly registered with sub
register–Contention of appellants counsel that no case for ejectment can be filed when
period of default falls beyond three years is misconceived–Once it is established that tenant
has defaulted in payment of rent he losses his right to occupy premises–Appellant have
failed to produce any proof or any coupon of money order by which they had sent rent for
period of default–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 12 7
S. 21–Whether a person carrying business in a name other than his own name may file a
suit in his own name–Question of–A person carrying business in a name or style other than
his own some may be sued in such name, but he himself cannot sue as such and he has to
sue in his personal name. PLJ 1997 Karachi 205
S. 4(2)–Rent Controller–Qualification of–Stage of raising objection–Tenant could raise such

objection before Rent Controller at any stage during proceedings and not before appellate
forum. PLJ 1999 Karachi 65
S. 5 (1)(2)–New agreement between parties–Non-registration–Effect–Contention that new
agreement having neither been registered nor signed and attested by any Rent Controller,
Civil Judge or Magistrate as provided under Section 5 of Sindh Rented Premises
Ordinance, 1979 had no evidentiary value and could not be relied upon for determining rent
and other terms of tenancy–Held : Clause (ii) of sub-section (2) thereof clearly contemplates
existence of tenancy and application of said Ordinance even in cases where no agreement
in manner provided under section 5(1) has been executed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 760
S. 6(11–Notice to petitioner for demolishing shops and offices coming within cut-line
portion–Challenge to–Whether plea of petitioner that there is no immediate prospect of road
widening and thus they cannot be called upon to remove offending structure, is tenable
especially when they failed to prove that constructed creature in front of their plot had been
duly regularised and condition contained in letter of KMC fulfilled–Question of–It is not
disputed that structure in question falls within cut-line portion–All that is urged is that
necessary process for acquisition has not been taken in hand but that is not material–It is
common knowledge that in various localities, multi-storeyed building are constructed leaving
substantive frontage for cut-line purposes–Cut-line portions have never been acquired–If
petitioner’s logic were to be accepted then owners of such cut-line portion could raise make
shift constructions thereon on simplest of pleas that awaiting acquisition they could use their
property in manner suited to themselves–In expanding modern city such as Karachi, cut-line
provisions are of vital importance–Such have to be given effect to in all individual cases and
one individual cannot steal march over another by simply saying that scheme is itself in
state of fruition and that be would only act when others do likewise or that till such time as
land is his, he is free to do with it what he pleases–Held: Land can remain with owner
petitioners to be used as open ground or for any other purpose except use as building
constructed thereupon–Held further Constitutional jurisdiction is essentially equitable in
nature, but no equities call to be protected in this case–Petitions dismissed. PLJ 1998
Karachi 171
S. 8, 9 & 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Whether appellant/tenant was defaulter in payment of
rent for months of July and August–Question of–Testimony of respondents attorney could
not be shaken and same was consistent with pleadings on default in payment of rent for
month of July and August which stood proved as rent was neither paid nor tendered in
terms of expired tenancy agreement between parties–Held, Tenant is defaulter–Appeal
dismissed– PLJ 1996 Karachi 130
S. 8, 9 & 15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Whether appellant/tenant was defaulter in payment of
rent for months of July and August–Question of–Testimony of respondents attorney could
not be shaken and same was consistent with pleadings on default in payment of rent for
month of July and August which stood proved as rent was neither paid nor tendered in
terms of expired tenancy agreement between parties–Held, Tenant is defaulter–Appeal
dismissed– PLJ 1996 Karachi 130
S.10 (4) — Ejectment of tenant — Order of — Challenge to — Default Ground of —

Whether appellant had actually tendered rent through two money orders — Question of —
Under Section 10(4) of Ordinance receipt of postal money order amongst others, can he
accepted as proof of payment of rent — Held: Money order receipts stood proved and same
were taken to he proof of payment of rent under Section 10(4) of Ordinance — Held further:
Appellant cannot be said to have committed default in payment of rent — Appeal allowed.
PLJ 1993 Karachi 275
S.10–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge to–Default in payment of rent–Ground
of–Under Section 10 of Ordinance, tenant has to tender rent directly to landlord in first
instance, and in case landlord refuses or avoids to accept rent, same is to be sent to him
through postal money order or to be deposited with Rent Controller–Appellant has not
placed any corroborative evidence on record, to show that he had ever tendered rent to
respondent–Held: Appellant miserably failed to show that he had tendered rent to
respondent and is liable to be ejected on account of default in payment of rent–Appeal
dismissed. PLJ 1994 Karachi 164
S.12–Property under tenancy–Repairs of–Prayer for–Rejection of–Challenge to–Admittedly,
there is no written agreement of tenancy–Rent Controller was in error in holding that
because there was no written tenancy, repairs could not be sought by tenant–No objection
having been raised on local Commissioner’s report, it stands accepted, and according to his
report,property requires repairs–Held: Rent Controller, in not accepting this report, has
again acted irregularly and improperly in exercise of powers conferred upon him and his
order is bad–Appeal accepted and case remanded. PLJ 1991 Karachi 345
S.12–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Whether amount spent by tenant on repairs is
adjustable towards arrears of rent–Question of–A landlord can be directed to carry out
repairs to keep premises in proper shape and if he fails to do so, Rent Controller may, on
application made to him by tenant, direct that such repairs may be carried out by him and
cost thereof be deducted from rent payable to landlord–In this case, respondent had
permitted appellant to carry out necessary repairs but only to extent of Rs.2000/- –Field:
Appellant could at best adjust an amount of Rs.2,000/-towards cost incurred by him over
repairs of premises. PLJ 1991 Karachi 241
S.14 (1) — Tenant — Ejectment of — Order of — Challenge to — Contention that it was a
case of fresh tenancy due to compromise in F.R.A. No.182 of 1985, whereby respondent
had agreed to accept enhanced rent, disentitling her to seek summary ejectment of
appellant — Held: An increase of rent by mutual agreement during operation of tenancy
would not constitute renting out premises within meaning of proviso to Section 14(1) of
Ordinance — Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 172 1988 MLD 2541 rel.
S.14 read with National Registration Act, 1973 (LVI of 1973), Sections 9 &
11–Tenant–Ejectment of–Landlady attaining age of 60 years -Ground of–Finding of Rent
Controller is positive and in affirmative–It is based on entries in National Identity Card and
other material brought on record–Entries in National Identity Card were made at time when
law granting any such benefits was not in existence and when there was no such
controversy which could have prompted landlady to give an incorrect age–Held: Entries of

National Identity Card shall hold field unless they are rebutted by an equally good or better
evidence which is altogether lacking in this case. PLJ 1991 SC 416
S.14(1) — Tenant — Ejectment of — Order of — Challenge to — Whether plea of want of
bonafides is relevant — Question of — Held: Question whether plea of want of bonafides is
relevant in case of ejectment under Section 14(1) of Ordinance, has been set at rest by a
Division Bench of Sindh High Court. PLJ 1993 Karachi 172 PU 1986 Karachi 369 rel.
S.14(2) — Tenant — Ejectment of — Order of — Challenge to — Subsection(2) of Section
14 of Ordinance provides an exception that landlord shall not be entitled to benefit of
Section 14(1) if he is in occupation of a building owned by him in any locality — Respondent
in this case, wants disputed premises mainly for commercial purpose — Held: Contention
that landlady being admittedly in occupation of a residential premises in same building,
cannot seek ejectment of her tenant on ground that same is more suitable to her needs, is
devoid of force. PLJ 1993 Karachi 172
S.14(l) & (3) — Tenant — Ejectment application by widow under summary procedure for
personal requirement — Eviction from flat ordered but that from shop refused — Challenge
to — Appellant stated in cross-examination that she was prepared to give ground portion of
demised premises on enhanced rent if first floor of premises was vacated — Held: Landlady
had tailed to bring her case within scope of Section 14(1) of Ordinance, 1979, because such
admission by her clearly indicates that premises on ground floor was not actually needed by
her — Held further: Delayed action by landlady casts doubts on factum for her “personal
requirement” of rented premises — Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 285
S.14–Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of–Challenge to–Objection that respondent was not
owner of premises in dispute–A person can own a premises without having a legal title over
plot over which premises are constructed–Ownership of respondent was not disputed by
appellant at any stage of case–Held: Appellant will be debarred from raising such plea at
appellate stage–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1992 Karachi 52 1983 CLC 317 rel.
S.14–Tenant–Ejectment of–Prayer for–Dismissal of ejectment petition–Challenge
to–Section 14 enables a landlord to seek eviction of his tenant on ground that he was
salaried employee and he had retired from service–However, he has to establish his prima
facie need–In this case, appellant retired from service with effect from 17.8.1975, and had
he required shop for his own use, he would not have rented out same to respondent on
20.8.1975–Ordinance was promulgated on 21.11.1979, while rent case was filed by
appellant on 23.4.1986–Although no limitation is prescribed but delay militates against
appellant’s genuine need–Held: Appellant has not been able to establish his genuine need
for disputed shop–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1991 Karachi 273 PLJ 1983 Karachi 15 and 1986
CLC 681 rel.
S.14-Tenant–Ejectment of–Rejection of application–Challenge to–It was stated by
respondent in written statement that appellant was in occupation of similar shop/premises in
same building and that object of filing application for ejectment was to obtain huge amount
of pugree–Application was dismissed by Rent Controller for non-compliance of provisions of
Section 14 in asmuch as notice was sent one month earlier than stipulated time–It is
bounden duty of Rent Controller to see if statutory requirements of Section 14 of Ordinance

have been fully complied with–Held: Appellant’s application under Section 14 of Ordinance,
was premature–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 5 PLJ 1989 SC 62 rel.
S.15 — Ejectment — Refusal of — Challenge to — Default — Ground of –Landlady
adopted practice of collecting accumulated rent from tenants including respondent —
Documentary evidence establishes that appellant had been receiving lump sum rent of two
to fifteen months from tenants from January, 1981 — Held: Rent Controller had exercised
discretion in accordance with recognised principles in condoning delay in payment of rent
by respondent — Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 223
S.15 — Ejectment of tenant — Challenge to — Personal bonafide requirement –Ground of
— Respondent’s husband and attorney admitted that she had in het possession two shops
on ground floor at time of purchase of property in question, which were still in her
possession – He also admitted that he was carrying on another business under name of
‘Faiz Motors and Workshop’ where he was admittedly dealing with sale and purchase of
cars and their repairs — Moreover, landlady has failed to place any material regarding
requirement for her children – iesHeld: Respondent has failed to establish her personal
requirement in good faith for onherself and for her husband and children — Appeal allowed.
Ne PLJ 1993 Karachi 214
S.15 – Ejectment of tenant — Challenge to — Whether demand of higher rent was an act of
malafide — Question of — Held: Demand of higher rent by itself cannot be regarded as an
act of malafide — Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 218
S.15 — Tenant — Ejectment of — Refusal of — Challenge to — Conversion of residential
premises into godown — Ground of — There is evidently an error on face of record and
misreading of evidence on record — Respondents’ own documents disclose that
respondents have been using premises as a godown –Deposition of appellant in this
regard, has also gone unrebutted — Held: Respondents by converting premises into a
godown, have impaired value and utility of house — Appeal accepted. PLJ 1993 Karachi
287
S.15 (2) (ii) read with Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Article, 84–Tenant–Ejectment
of–Challenge to–Default–Ground of–Contention that comparison of signatures made by
Rent Controller, is dangerous to be relied upon without aid of an expert–Article 84 of
Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 lays down an additional mode of proving signature and
court can compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures–Held: Rent Controller who
had compared signature of respondent on disputed receipt, having given cogent reasons in
support of conclusion drawn by him, there is no ground to differ with assessment made by
him–Held further: Even if disputed receipt is accepted as genuine, still appellant was
defauterPLJ 1991 Karachi 226 PLD 1960 Dacca 835, 1985 SCMR 214 and 1981 SCMR 93
rel.
S.15 (2) (ii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Default–Ground of–Contention that
appellant had spent a sum of Rs. 75000/- over construction of disputed premises and he
was entitled to adjustment of this amount–This plea was not raised by appellant in written
statement–Held: When a plea is not taken in pleadings, no evidence can be led or looked
into in support of such a plea. PLJ 1991 Karachi 226 1987 CLC 157 rel.

S.15(2)(ii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Default–Ground of–Demand of enhanced
rent did not absolve appellant to pay or tender agreed rent–He was bound to make payment
to landlord within time at same rate, which quite admittedly he failed to do so–Held: Finding
of Rent Controller about default is not open to any exception and is confirmed. PLJ 1991
Karachi 241
S.15(2)(ii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to—Default–Ground of–Respondent had not
been able to discharge initial onus of proving that appellant had defaulted in payment of rent
as she never issued any rent receipt and did not produce any hook of account to show that
rent for a particular month was not paid to her–Moreover, advance of 2500/- could be
adjusted towards monthly rent if there was any default–Respondent did not come to court
with clean hands as she suppressed fact that previously she had filed rent case for eviction
of appellant–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1991 Karachi 276
S.15(2)(vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal need–Ground of–Respondent has
simply stated that disputed premises is required by him for business of his son–His son has,
however, admitted in cross-examination that he has got an agency of Michels Fruit Products
and is running a shop near Palace Hotel, Jacobabad–Held: A simple desire to get premises
vacated, is not sufficient–Finding on issue of personal need reversed. PLJ 1991 Karachi
241
S.15(2)(vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal requirement–Ground of–In
seeking ejectment of a tenant for personal requirement, landlord has only to satisfy Rent
Controller that his needs are genuine and he requires premises honestly–Held: No
exception can be taken to findings of Rent Controller on this issue. PLJ 1991 Karachi 226
S.15(2)(vii)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Dismissal of ejectment application–Challenge
to–Personal use of landlord would include use of premises by all such persons who are
dependent on or residing with landlord–Although Mst. Shamima Sattar being a co-owner of
premises, was also entitled to use of same, but even if highly technical objection raised by
respondents is accepted, use of appellant would include use of premises by Mst. Shamima
Sattar as well because she is residing with appellant–Held: Contention that ejectment
application was filed by appellant without making Mst. Shamima Sattar a party, has no
force. PLJ 1993 Karachi 448
S.15-A read with Sections 14 and 15(2)(vii)–Tenant=-Handing over possession on
landlord’s request for his personal use–Subsequently landlord relating same–Whether
tenant can invoke provision of Section 15-A–Question of–Proceedings under Section 15-A
can be initiated against landlord when he gets possession under Section 14 or 15(2)(vii)
through Rent Controller and then instead of personal use, relets same–ln this case,
admittedly tenant had on his own and on demand of landlord, handed over vacant
possession–Held: Action under Section 15-A of Ordinance could not have been taken
against appellant–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1991 Karachi 153
S.15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Whether ejectment of tenant can be ordered on
ground that tenant had defaulted in payment of rent in respect of a period, rent whereof had
become time-barred–Question of–There is no finding that there was any default in payment
of rent after August, 1983–Ejectment has been ordered as rent from October, 1982 till July

1983, had been tendered through money order on 6.8.1983–Ejectment application was filed
on 21.4.1988–Landlord could not have filed a suit for recovery of the amount in April, 1988
as rent for said period had become time-barred–Held: Rent for defaulted period was not
lawfully due and it could not be recoverd through legal proceedings, therefore, ejectment of,
appellant could not be ordered on ground of default in payment of rent–Appeal accepted
and ejectment order set aside. PLJ 1991 Karachi 145
S.15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Application for–Dismissal of–Challenge to–Appellant dropped
respondent No.1 as according to him no person by name of respondent No.1 existed–In
ejectment case, ground was that respondent No.1 was tenant and he had sublet premises
to respondent No.2–Respondent No.2 did not admit him as landlord–Held: There being no
relationship’ of landlord and tenant between appellant and respondent No.2, rent case
cannot be maintained against him, and Controller had rightly dismissed eviction application
after withdrawal of case against respondent No.1. PL. 1991 Karachi 324
S.15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Application for–Dismissal of–Challenge to–Subletting and
impairing of value or utility of premises–Grounds of–Respondent and his son’s statements
to effect that respondent No.2 has been paying rent of Rs.300/- P.M. to appellant for both
shops at rate of Rs.150/-per shop, are being supported by rent receipts and money order
receipt–Evidence of respondents about creation of independent tenancy between appellant
and respondent No. 2 has remained unshaken and established–Held: Mere fact that
respondents have carried out certain additions and alterations will not entitle appellant to an
order for eviction–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1991 Karachi 160
S.15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Application of–Dismissal of–Challenge to–Impairing value or
utility of premises and nuisance–Grounds of–Held: A perusal of evidence produced by
appellant will reveal that appellant has neither produced any evidence as to how value or
utility of premises has been impaired nor their is any evidence that respondent was creating
nuisance in neighbourhood–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1991 Karachi 159
S.15–Tenant–ejectment of–Challenge to–Personal need–Ground of–It was stated by
respondent that he required shop in dispute to establish his business at Karachi– Appellant
specifically denied aforesaid requirement and pleaded that respondent had been running a
shop adjacent to his shop and had sufficient accommodation at his disposal–This
contention of appellant was not rebutted by respondent–Respondent’s son deposed that
business in name of Saleem & Brothers Medical Store was owned by him and his father
wanted to run his own business in shop in dispute–Such evidence is of no consequence as
respondent himself did not disown said business–Held: It is not possible to reach conclusion
that respondent requires premises in question in good faith for his bonafide use–Appeal
accepted and eviction order set aside. PLJ 1992 Karachi 156
S.15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Orders of–Challenge to–Additions and alterations in rented
premises–Ground of–It is admitted position that appellant did make certain additions and
alterations in shop–It is also an admitted position that this was done without permission and
consent of landlady–Held: Although it may be a disputable fact whether this act has
impaired value or utility of shop, but there can be no denying fact that it is likely to impair
look of shop. P1J 1992 Karachi 1,48

S.15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Prayer for–Landlord and tenant–Relationship of–Denial
of–Challenge to–Respondent, by his conduct, has admitted that he was tenant of premises
in dispute–There should be some overtact done by tenant to create an interest in
immovable property, a right in all partners of firm so as to create in them unity of title, unity
of interest, unity of possession as well as every part of deal, so that all partness become co-
tenants–In this case, disputed premises were not brought into as a part of partnership
property and no interest in premises passed over to partners so as to make them co-
tenants–Held: Relationship of landlord and tenant does exist between parties–Appeal
accepted. PLJ 1991 Karachi 281
S.16 — Ejectment — Challenge to — Whether tentative rent order is open to examination in
appeal — Question of — Patent illegalities and manifest injustice in tentative rent order are
open to examination in appeal against eviction following striking off defence — Held: Court
sitting in appeal can examine initial as well final order of Rent Controller, however scope of
such exercise is confined to injustices, illegalities and jurisdictional errors, none of which
exist in this case. PLJ 1993 Karachi 245
S.16(1) — Ejectment — Defence — Striking off — Whether fixed deposit was adjustable
towards rental dues — Question of — Fixed deposit was refundable only on expiry of
tenancy according to agreement — Held: Security deposit is to be applied as stipulated and
not otherwise e.g. not to cure a general default, unless agreed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 245
S.16(1) — Ejectment of tenant — Defence — Striking off — Challenge to –Rent Controller
had struck off defence of appellant/tenant on ground that he had failed to comply with the
interim order to deposit arrears of rent — Controller was required to determine exact
amount of arrears regarding electricity bills, water and conservancy charges — Moreover
Sui Gas Charges were not included according to rent agreement — Held: Interim order
under Section 16(1) being defective and vague, was untenable and final order being based
on it, is also rendered ineffective — Appeal accepted and case remanded to Controller for
passing fro’h order under Section 16(1) of the Ordinance. PLJ 1993 Karachi 166
S.16(1) & (2) — Tenant — Ejectment of — Striking off defence of tenant –Challenge to —
Whether appellant was not properly advised while giving his consent for deposit of arrears
— Question of — Order of Rent Controller for depsoit of arrears of rent was admittedly
passed by consent of parties — Before such order, appellant himself had filed on
application seeking permission to deposit such arrears — Held: It cannot be said that
appellant was not properly advised. PLJ 1993 Karachi 302
S.16(1)&(2)–Tenant–Striking off defence of–Challenge to–Appellant had not produced with
his objections, counterfoils of money order coupens, therefore, Rent Controller could not
take same into consideration while passing order under Section 16(1) of Ordinance–There
is no defect in order of Rent Controller passed on 18.4.1993 (for deposit of arrears of
rent)–Held: Non-compliance of said order, calls for invoking of penal clause as provided in
Section 16(2) of Ordinance which has rightly been resorted to by Rent Controller—Appeal
dismissed. PLJ 1994 Karachi 388
S.16(1)–Tenant–Defence of–Striking off–Challenge to–Held: It is by now a settled law that
Rent Controller has no power at all to extend time for deposit of rent fixed by him under

Section 16(1) of Ordinance–Held further: Reasons given by Rent Controller for refusing to
extend time, are un-exceptional–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1991 Karachi 321
S.16(1)–Tenant–Defence of–Striking off–Challenge to–Unquestionably, an issue going to
root of controversy and involving jurisdiction, is more an issue between court and parties
than between parties inter-se and has to be decided before any basic order in proceedings
is passed–However, question of maintainability stood given up in this case at all material
times–About contention that no rent being due at time of filing of rent case, no order of .
deposit in terms of Section 16(1) could be passed, all that need be said is that a case
cannot be thrown out by a judicial forum if ex facie it attracts jurisdiction of forum–In
ejectment cases, order of deposit has to be passed if a landlord makes an application under
Section ’16(1) of Ordinance and subsistence of arrears of rent is not relevant–Held: None of
objections to tentative order of deposit of rent, is valid and there is no justification to
interfere with impugned order–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 382
S.16(1)–Tentative arrears of rent–Deposit of–Order of–Striking off defence–Challenge
to–Application under Section 16(1) of Ordinance, was taken up on a date on which it was
not fixed and order was passed thereon in absence of appellant or his counsel–Principle of
audi alteram partem has been transgressed by Rent Controller without any
justification–Held: Order under Section 16(1) of Ordinance was bad and subsequent order
of striking off defence, founded thereupon, is equally bad–Appeal accepted and case
remanded for fresh decision on application under Section 16(1) of Ordinance PLJ 1991
Karachi 365
S.16(1)–Tentative arrears of rent–Deposit of–Order of–Striking off defence–Challenge
to–Arrears pertained to a period prior to institution of rent case and covered a little more
than 43 months–Substantial part of amount was beyond period of 3 years prior to filing of
eviction matter–Held: Tentative order Contravened rule laid down by Supreme Court. PLJ
1991 Karachi 365
S.16(2)–Tenant–Defence of–Striking off–Default admitted but delay in deposit of arrears
condoned by Rent Controller–Challenge to–It is well settled that Controller is left with no
other option but to strike off defence of tenant if default in deposit of arrears is admitted or
proved–Held: Rent Controller while condoning delay, has failed to appeciate obvious
negligence of respondents and his order is bad in law–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1991 Karachi
302
S.16(2)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Prayer for–Defence of tenant–Striking off–Challenge
to–Direction about deposit of arrears of rent is illegal inasmuch as instead of determining
exact amount to be deposited as arrears, Rent Controller ordered deposit of arrears of 24
months tentatively–Other part of rent order about deposit of future rent was valid–Defence
of appellant could be struck off for non-compliance of rent order only on ground that
direction for deposit of further rent was not complied–Held: It could not be held that there
was a default in deposit of rent for October, 1987 (not covered by direction about future
rent) by appellant. PLJ 1991 Karachi 266
S.18 — Death of landlord — Notice intimating death — Service of — Whether notice was
served on appellant — Question of — It is stated by respondent in ejectment application

that on death of her husband, she had sent intimation to appellant on three dates through
registered A.D. post but all envelopes were returned with evasive remarks — Held:
Presumption of appellant having been served with three notices could have arisen if same
had not come back to respondent after they were sent on correct address of appellant —
Held further : However, filing of rent application by respondent can be treated notice under
Section 18 of Ordinance. PLJ 1993 Karachi 205
S.18 — Ejectment of tenant — Challenge to — Whether notice about new ownership was
necessary — Question of — Purpose of notice under Section 18 of Ordinance is only to
inform tenant about new ownership, which appellants knew much earlier when previous
application was filed by respondents — eviction was not sought on ground of default —
Held: Service of notice was immaterial. PLJ 1993 Karachi 218
S.2(h) read with Section 15(2)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Prayer for–Dismissal of ejectment
petition–Challenge to–Whether in view of use of premises for running a factory, it ceases to
be premises defined in Section 2(h) of Ordinance–Question of–Contention that a factory
does not come within ambit of Ordinance–Under Section 15(2), landlord can invoke
provisions in respect of “premises” which means a building or land, let out on rent, but does
not include a hotel–Held: A building or land does not cease to be premises defined by
Section 2(h) if it is used for running a factory–Held further: Had it been so, such provision
would have been made in Section 2(h) or Section 15 of Ordinance. PLJ 1994 Karachi 167
S.2(i)–Rent–Definition of–Water conservancy and betterment taxes–Whether included in
rent–Question of–Agreement deed produced by landlord was not proved as signatures on
document did not tally with admitted signatures of tenant, and said agreement was not
signed by any attestation witness–Contention that rent includes water charges, electricity
charges and such other charges which are payable by tenant, cannot be accepted–Held:
Plain language of definition of rent in Section 2(i) of Ordinance, does not in any manner cast
any statutory liability on tenant for payment of said charges in absence of any agreement to
said effect–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 68
S.21–Suit for ejectment on grounds of default in payment, sub-letting of subject premises
and conversion of premises from residential to commercial–Decreed to–Appeal
against–Anwar Ahmed, Advocate was engaged by appellant and his co-opponent
Muhammad Aslam to represent them–Their signatures on vakalatnama and various other
affidavits, have been compared with admitted signatures and some appear to resemble with
each other–He made a statement that be was duly engaged by appellant and co-opponent
which remained unchallenged–No notice is required to be issued if opponent appears
through a pleader duly instructed and able to answer all material questions relating to
proceedings–Besides, Rent Cantroller held service of notice upon appellant and co-
opponent good in order dated 19.9.1993–Held : Allegation against Anwar Ahmed, Advocate
regarding his appearance unauthorisedly does not inspite confidence and is belied by
circumstances and record–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 687
S.22–Tenant–Ejectment of–Application for permission to pay rent to respondent–Rejection
of–Challenge to–Appellant having admitted relationship of landlord and tenant between him
and respondent, and having lost ejectment case before Controller as well as in F.R.A., has

now no legs to stand–Held: Possibility of agreement and notice being concoted and forged,
cannot be ruled out–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1991 Karachi 323
S.2–Tenant–Ejectment of–Dismissal of ejectment application–Challenge to–Whether Rent
Controller had jurisdiction under Ordinance in respect of a saw mill–Question of–As is
clearly evident from definitions, a saw mill does not fall either within purview of expression
“building” or “land” as defined in Section 2 of Ordinance—It is admitted position that when
premises were let out to respondent, a saw mill had already been installed therein–Held: No
useful purpose would be served by remand of case for recording evidence to determine
whether premises consisted of only a saw mill or a shop, because evidence on point
already appears to be sufficient upon which a clear finding could be given by
Controller–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1994 Karachi 56
S.8.–Fair rent–Determination of–Challenge to–Contention that orders of Rent Controller
fixing fair rent, are arbitrary and all factors required to be considered under Section 8 of
Ordinance have not been dilated upon–Form P.T.I. showing increase of gross rental value
has not been considered by Rent Controller–He has taken into consideration only
enhancement in water charges and other factors have not been taken into
consideration–Held: Fair rent Fixed by Rent Controller is based on arbitrary discretion and
no cogent reasons have been assigned for same–Appeal accepted and case remanded.
PLJ 1991 Karachi 221
S.8–Fair rent–Fixation of–Challenge to–Whether appellants being tenant since 1958, had
acquired a vested right and therefore, application for increase of rent was not
maintainable–Question of–On repeal of Sindh urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 by
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, said vested right could not continue as a different
intention is shown by not fixing any period of limitation for filing application for fair rent–Held:
No vested right was created in favour of appellant. PLJ 1991 Karachi 163
S-16 — Ejectment — Challenge to — Striking off defence — Tenant has to make
scrupulous compliance of tentative order of deposit leaving basic controversies to be
decided in ultimate analysis — Admittedly, there was continuous default for the period of
four months – Held: Little exception could be taken to order of Controller striking off tenant’s
defence. PLJ 1993 Karachi 245
Se. 16(2) & 21–In February, 1995, rent was deposited on 12th February, Friday & Saturday
being public holidays–Appellant depositing rent regularly otherwise–Admittedly, appellant
has made no default except as mentioned hereinabove–Admittedly, there is no other delay
in depositing arrears or future rent which could import element of negligence or wilful
disobedience on the part of appellant–In view of principle laid down in above case law and
facts of the cases–Held: There seems to be no default committed by tenant. PLJ 1997
Karachi 528
Section 15 (2) (vii)–Ejectment of tenant–Personal need of landlord–Contention that there
are existence of inconsistencies between pleadings and evidence of Respondent/Landlord
regarding personal bonafide need–Admission of Respondent that her husband had opened
a tution centre and she is running a boutique business in application, whereas in cross-
examination Respondent stated that she is working in a school as teacher–Held: With

regard to denial that applicant is not working as school teacher does not seem to be
inconsistency- PLJ 1996( Karachi) 156
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (XVII of 1979)- —-S. 16(2)–Failure to deposit rent
determined by Rent Controller–Plea of tenant that order was vague and, thus, had no
force–Held : It tenant chose to deposit rent on the last few days then he must suffer for his
own negligence. PLJ 1999 Karachi 95
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (XVII of 1979)- —-S.8–Fair rent–Fixation
of–Challenge to–A perusal of Section 8 will show that four factors required to be considered
are, (1) rent of similar premises situated in similar circumstances in same and adjoining
locality, (2) rise in cost of construction and repair charges, (3) imposition of new taxes, and
(4) annual valuation of premises if any on which property tax is levied–Respondent has
been able to establish three factors but no evidence has been produced about fourth factor,
i.e., annual rental valuation of property– Respondent has established rent from Rs.3/- to
Rs.6/- per square foot–Held: Controller has judiciously taken into consideration provisions of
law and fact and has reduced rent to Rs.2/- per square foot instead of Rs.3/- which is paid
for similar premises–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1991 Karachi 163
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (XVII of 1979)0 —-S. 21(b)–Civil Procedure Code
(V of 1908), O.XLI, R. 27—Additional evidence–Nature of documents sought to be
produced on record by way of additional evidence was such that those documents were
relevant for making further enquiry in order to come to a just and proper conclusion and
pertained to same subject-matter between same parties–Court in the interest of justice
allowed application. PLJ 1998 Karachi 658
Ss- 21 & 15–Tenant–Ejectment of—Default of payment of rent Ground of—Appeal
against–Deposit of rent i office of Rent Controller by appellant who is not tenant of
respondent No. 1 would not be due tender of rent by tenant–Respondent Nu. 2 being tenant
of respondent No. I Ceded to fonder rent for stated period therefore, he was
defaulter–Respondent No. 1 has proved by documentary as well as mid evidence that
respondent No. 2 had entered into agreement with her–Execution of said agreement has
not been denied by respondent No. 2 and appellant-Held : There has been default in
payment of rent by respondent No. 2 who was tenant of respondent No. 1–Findings of Rent
Controller reversed– Appeal dismissed and respondent No. 2 directed to vacate premises.
PLJ 1997 Karachi 297
Ss. 10 & 15(2)–Tenancy under agreement–Mode of payment–Payment of rent after expiry
of period fixed by mutual agreement as used in Sec. 15(2) would mean period fixed by that
agreement, which is executed U/S 15 of Ordinance–This period may be weekly, monthly or
yearly–Default in such cases would be counted after expiry of that period–In absence of any
date fixed in this behalf by mutual agreement then, under section 10 of Ordinance, rent has
to be paid not later than 10th of month next following month for which it is due–In such
cases default has to be computed according to spirit of section–Held: Both those modes of
payment of rent would be applicable in cases when tenancy between parties started after
promulgation of Ordinance, 1979. PLJ 1996 Karachi 612
Ss. 14 & 19-Rent Controller seized of an application under S. 14-Not to ignore procedure

laid down in S. 19 (4)-Words. Summary manner” in S. 14 (3)-Do not deprive from right to
show cause or give evidence and to crossexamine. P L J 1981 Karachi 697
Ss. 15 & 18 read with Qanun-a-Shahadat (10 of 1984) Art. 114–Ejectment
application–Maintainability–Waiver–Question of–Ejectment petition filed by one of the legal
heirs of deceased landlord on the ground of default and personal bona•fide need, was
resisted by tenants on ground that same was not maintainable as apart from legal heir who
had filed ejectment application there were other legal heirs of deceased who had not
chosen to file ejectment proceedings–No provision existed in Sindh Rented Premises
Ordinance, 1979 to the effect that if some of the legal heirs had not chosen to file ejectment
application against tenant or were not interested in collecting rent, other co-sharers could
not enforce their right of receiving rent–Ownership right devolved on all legal heirs of
deceased landlord and all had legal right to initiate ejectment proceedings–Tenants could
have deposited rent in Court to safeguard interest of those legal heirs who were not party to
ejectment proceedings and could not take benefit by not paying rent–Even, legal heirs of
deceased who had not enforced their right of collecting rent., had not waived their right and
mere inaction of those legal heirs could not be termed as waiver for waiver should either be
expressed or implied–To prove waiver there should be some clear and justified act or
conduct beyond mere silence. PLJ 1997 Karachi 986
Ss. 15 & 19–Tenant–Ex prate ejectment of–Challenge to–Date fixed for hearing of
ejectment application having been declared as holiday, Rent Controller passed ex park,
ejectment order on very next date which date was not fixed for hearing and that too without
notice to opponent–Ex prate proceedings and ex prate ejectment order passed by Rent
Controller, thus, were void ab initio, illegal, inoperative and would not create any right in
favour of applicant. PLJ 1997 Karachi 1009
Ss. 15 & 21–Advance payment of rent–Whether considered default in payment of
rent–Amount of advance rent was deposited by tenant and same could be treated as a rent
for period of default–No exception, thus, could be taken to finding of Rent Controller that
there was no default in payment of rent. PLJ 1999 Karachi 765
Ss. 15 & 21–Personal need of landlord who is practising Advocate and intends to set up
business in demised premises–Petition accepted by Rent Controller–Challenge
to–Enrollment of respondent as Advocate cannot prevent him from embarking of his future
course of action–He had attained age of 60 years and he has also served upon appellant
notice under Section 14 which was replied–Attempt was further made to deny claim of
landlord by showing that he owned two buildings behind building in question–However, that
flats and shops in those buildings were already let out to tenants–Respondent/landlord has
succeeded in proving his need being retired from service on attaining age of
superannuation–Even otherwise such pleas had not been taken in written statement and
therefore, cannot be allowed at appellate stage–Appeal without any substance is
accordingly dismissed in limine. PLJ 1998 Karachi 436
Ss. 15 & 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need–Ground of–Commercial
property–Where need of landlord as mentioned in application is duly established through
evidence for which landlord must enter in witness-box and depose on oath about personal

bona fide need and assign reasons for such need, Court would normally not question such
need–Evidence on record clearly established need of landlord and his bona fides for
running his own business–Tenant, while controverting assertions of landlord, produced
hearsay evidence which did not inspire confidence–Landlord was, thus, successful in
establishing his bona fide need and assigning reasons for starting his own business in shop
in question–Tenant was directed to vacate the shop. PLJ 1999 Karachi 226 1992 SCMR
1296 rel. 992 SCMR 1296; 1997 CLC 605; 1972 SCMR 437; 1993 MLD 477; PLD 1976
Kar. 832 and 1980 SCMR 593 ref
Ss. 15 & 21–Tenant–Eljectment of–Personal bona fide need–Ground of—-Husband of
landlady was carrying on lot of business in different firms and was in possession to extent of
his share in those properties–Evidence of landlady was not confidence inspiring whereas
that of tenant was consistent and its veracity could not be shaken–Landlady was hunting for
some ground to seek eviction of tenant at all costs with mala fide and ulterior motives–No
substance having been found in contentions of landlady, no exception could be taken to
findings of Rent Controller dismissing appeal of landlady. PLJ 1999 Karachi 765
Ss. 15 and 21–Ejectment application–Acceptance of–Appeal to–Demand of enhancing rent
would not disentitle respondent from getting the premises for personal bonafide need of her
son–It is also not fatal to the case of respondent if her son is not examined–No supporting
evidence has been produced by appellant showing that requirement is in bad faith–Held :
Rent Controller had rightly allowed ejectment application on ground of personal need of
respondent–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 73
Ss. 15&18–Tenant–Ejectment of–Relationship of landlord and tenant–Denial of–Challenge
to–In her counter-affidavit in FRA No. 1002 of 1980, deceased landlady had herself denied
relationship of landlord and tenant between her and respondent–Held: Contentions raised
by learned counsel for respondent are on basis of record that appellants’ case is rebutted
by their own evidence–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1991 Karachi 157
Ss. 15(2) (ii) & 18–Change of ownership of premises–Default–Ground of Legal heir sent
notice of change of ownership of premises under S. 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises
Ordinance, 1979 which was acknowledged by tenant–Tenant failed to deposit or tender rent
of premises within stipulated period of 30 days from date of receipt of notice of change of
ownership, and had thus committed default. PLJ 1997 Karachi 986
Ss. 15(2)(ii)(vii) & 18–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default and personal bona fide need–Ground
of–Relationship of landlord and tenant–Question of- Landlord in his affidavit-in-evidence
had stated that he was residing in a smaller portion of house alongwith his dependents and
that he required premises for his personal use–Tenant had denied relationship of landlord
and tenant contending that landlord had not issued him notice of change of ownership
under S. 18 of Ordinance, 1979–Landlord had produced three documents, (1) postal
receipt, (2) notice, and (3) T.C.S. receipts- Mere denial of tenant could not controvert
statement of landlord with regard to issuance and service of notice of change of ownership,
especially when statement of landlord was supported by three authentic
documents–Tenant, even after service of notice under S. 18 of Ordinance, 1979 had neither
paid rent nor be tendered same–Landlord, thus, had proved that he required premises for

his personal bona fide use, especially when tenant had not been able to make out case
otherwise. PLJ 1998 Karachi 72 5
Ss. 15(2)(vii) & 15-A–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bona fide need- Ground of–Once
landlord who stepped in witness-box had deposed that premises were required for personal
need and such statement was made on oath and presented himself for cross-examination,
and such statement remained unshaken in cross-exanination, it should, in ordinary course,
be deemed to be sufficient for ejectment of tenant on the ground of personal
need–Legislature had provided protection to tenant by enacting S. 15-A of Ordinance,
1979–Mere invitation to offer to sell building, which was not actually sold, would not reflect
rnala fides on the part of landlord–Appeal allowed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 733
Ss. 15(2)(vii) & 20–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R. 17–Plea of personal bona
fide need was not raised by landlord in his ejectment application, but was raised in affidavit-
in-evidence of attorney and witness of landlord–Held : Rent Controller, in circumstances,
ought to have refrained from entertaining and deciding question of personal requirement of
landlord in his judgment–Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 though were not
applicable to proceedings for ejectment under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 but
principles which were basis and foundation for administration of justice could be invoked to
proceedings under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979–Landlord who desired to add
ground of personal bona fide need could file application in nature of Order VI, It. 17, Civil
Procedure Code for amendment of his ejectment application. PLJ 1999 Karachi 567
Ss. 15, 19 & 21 read with Transferal Property Act, ,1882 (DV of 1882), S. 52–Tenant: -
Exparte ejectment of–After ejectment property was sold to a third party–Validity–Order
issuing writ of possession having been set aside declaring same to be illegal, party in
whose favour writ of possession was issued, had contended that as it had sold out property
in dispute and had created third party interest in relation to property in dispute, any order
passed in appeal against issuance of writ of possession would affect third party which had
obtained possession after sale of property–Contention repelled because since transfer of
property in dispute during pendency of litigation was hit by principles enshrined in S. 52 of
Transfer of Property Act, 18k:’ creation of third party interest in violation of law would not
deter Court from passing appropriate orders in favour of patty against which writ of
possession was illegally issued–It was for third patty to seek relief against patty in whose
favour writ of possession was issued. PLJ 1997 Karachi 1009
Ss. 15, 19 & 21–Tenant–Ex parte ejectment of–Challenge to–Restoration of
possession–Execution order passed by Rent Controller in hot haste without any notice to
opposite-party was declared to be illegal by Appellate Court–Once order of execution which
had been executed dispossessing tenant was declared illegal, held was entitled to
restoration of possession. PLJ 1997 Karachi 1009
Ss. 15-A & 21–Rent Controller was empowered to restore possession of premises to tenant
where landlord had put in use the premises other than for his personal use for which
ejectment was ordered. PLJ 1999 Karachi 226
Ss. 16 (1) & 3 — Ejectment — Challenge to — Defence — Striking off — Ascending rate of
rent — Whether Fair Rent — Question of — Ascending rate of rent, being an agreed term of

tenancy was considered Fair Rent which is also in line with postulates of Section 3 of Sindh
Rented Premises Ordinance — Held: No different view at tentative level is warranted —
FRA 514 of 1989 dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 245
Ss. 16(2) & 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Wilful default–Striking off defence–Tentative rent
order was passed by Rent Controller for deposit of arrears of rent but instead of depositing
rent in ease tenant had been depositing rent in some other case and, thus, violated orders
of Rent Controller–Tenant did not file any objection to application under S. 16(2) of
Ordinance–Conduct of tenant in not complying with directions was wilful and deliberate and
rendered him liable to be ejected–Order of striking off defence of tenant did not suffer from
any illegality. PLJ 1999 Karachi 737
Ss. 18 & 21–Tenant–Ejectment of–Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant–Dismissal
of application by Rent Controller–Status–Respondent (tenant) admitted in written statement
that he was liable to pay rent–Respondent had not claimed ownership of premises in
question–Rent was already determined–Respondent had himself produced order of
allotment in favour of original owner who had transferred the same to
petitioner–Respondent was, thus, undoubtedly tenant and would fall within scope of
law–Letter of transfer of ownership was sent to respondent through registered post on his
correct address–Relationship of landlord and tenant stood established between
parties–Respondent had himself admitted in his cross examination that he had not paid rent
to appellant, therefore, default stood established on record–Findings of Rent Controller
whereby he had dismissed application for ejectment, being not correct, were set
aside–Ejectment of tenant was ordered in circumstances. PLJ 1999 Karachi 253
Ss. 2 (f) and 15–Tenants–Ejectment of–Appeal against–Whether respondent having only
agreement to sell in his favour, could not have filed ejectment applications under Section 15
of Ordinance–Question of–Under Section 2(f), landlord means a person who is owner or
entitled to receive rent of demised premises in whatever capacity–According to sale
agreement, possession has been handed over to respondent alongwith tenants in premises
and entire sale consideration has been received by vendor Nawab Ali–Appellants contend
that there are four sisters of vendor Nawab Ali, but none of such sisters has been produced
for evidence–Burden to prove this contention lay, heavily on appellants but they failed to
discharge same–Held: Even if contention of appellants is accepted, sale agreement at least
will be valid to extent of Nawab Ali’s share and respondent would become co-sharer,
entitled to seek ejectment in his own right. PLJ 1994 Karachi 407
Ss. 2 and 15–Ejectment application–Acceptance of–Appeal against–Property belonged to
Waqaf–When wakif died, properly in question was available for inheritance and respondent
being his wife could not have inherited–Application for ejectment filed by respondent as a
co-owner of said property–Field : Ejectment proceedings were not by or at the instance of
wakf or its Mutwali but by respondent in capacity of an owner which she could not be in
view of property having already been dedicated to wakf by her late husband during his life
time–Respondent and her son concealed the existence of wakf which fact was disclosed
only in cross-examination–Appeal allowed. PLJ 1997 Karachi 21
Ss. 2(a) (h) & 15 — Tenant — Ejectment of — Refusal of — Challenge to –Whether

machinery installed in a factory or mill can be said to be “fixtures” within meaning of Section
2(a) of Ordinance — Question of — Most satisfactory mode of construction is to ascertain
meanings from statute alone — If legislature wanted to include a factory or mills within
definition of a building, it could have expressed so in plain words – Held: Saw mill could not
be brought within meanings of “building” as envisaged by Section 2(a) of Sindh Rented
Premises Ordinance, 1979 — Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 188
Ss. 2(f)(i), 15 & 21–Relationship of landlord and tenant–Landlord filed ejectment application
against tenant on ground of default–Tenant denied relationship of landlord and tenant
asserting that he was owner of premises in question–Landlord filed copy of original sale
deed in respect of pren es in question stated to have been executed in his favour by original
landlord–Tenant filed photocopy of similar sale deed and also failed to produce electricity
bill, water charges bills in his favour while landlord successfully proved his ownership over
premises by production of such documents & affidavits etc.–Appraisal of evidence–On a
question put to counsel for appellant by Court as to why appellant could not produce any
document like payment receipt for electricity and water charges from year 1985 when he
claims to have purchased premises from landlord (Actual) learned counsel was unable to
satisfy court–Similarly, as to why original agreement of sale executed by landlord (Actual) in
favour of appellant was not produced before Rent Controller, learned counsel for appellant
merely stated that its photostat copy was enough which was produced–Had appellant
actually purchased premises in year 1985 and occupied same, he must have come into
possession of documents like receipts of payment of electricity charges and water
charges–In juxta position to above case respondent, who claims to have purchased this
house from landlord (Actual) in 1987, has produced receipt of payment of electricity and
water charges for year 1987–Held: Rent Controller has quite correctly scrutinised and
discussed evidence led by parties on issue of relationship and his finding on same is neither
incorrect nor absured–Appeal without force is accordingly dismissed. PLJ 1998 Karachi 333
Ss. 2(f)(j), & 27(3)–Relationship of Landlord and tenant–Jurisdiction of Rent
Controller–Tenant denied relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties
contending that property in dispute being of Karachi Port Trust (K.P.T.), proceedings could
not be initiated before Rent Controller and that since Governor of West Pakistan had
exempted properties belonging to K.P.T. from operation of provisions of West Pakistan
Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, Rent Controller could not proceed with the matter
at all–Lease of property in dispute as granted by K.P.T. to landlord firstly for fifty years
commencing from 1922 and secondly for another fifty years effective from 1972—Landlord,
thus, for all practical purpose had legal right to use property in dispute for his benefit
including to let out the same for rent—In absence of any objection on part of Karachi Port
Trust Authorities with regard to renting out property to tenants by lessees/landlords, Rent
controller had jurisdiction in the matter PLJ 1997 Karachi 9
Ss. 2(h) & 15(2)–Ejectment application–Whether property is commercial or
residential–Question of–Property was originally a residential quarter and some shops which
were carved out were rented out by original owner from. whom landlords had subsequently
purchased and original owner was living with his family in the quarter till the time when

same was purchased by landlord–Property in question, thus was not originally commercial
in character especially when tenants had failed to lay down efore Court any document
which could indicate that entire belt, where property in question was situated, had become
commercialized- Ejectment application filed by landlord in circumstances was competent.
PLJ 1998 Karachi 842
Ss. 2(j) & 21–Tenant–Ejectment of—Default—Ground of–Relationship of landlord and
tenant–Question of—Appellant, who was in occupation of premises had admittedly received
notice by respondent that he having become owner of premises in question, was entitled to
receive rent- Appellant did not have any title to possess those premises or occupy the ame
and he was bound to pay rent for possession/occupation of premises, therefore, he was
tenant -Appellant in spite of receipt of notice did not pay rent to respondent, therefore,
default was established—Order of ejectment was maintained in circumstances. PLJ 1998
Karachi 755
Ss. 21 & 13–Tenant–Ejectment of–Suit for–Dismissal of–Challenge to–It stood proved from
documentary and oral evidence that rent was not deposited when it became due–Not a
single rent receipt was produced by respondent/tenant and withheld material evidence
whereunder adverse inference would be drawn that if it would have been produced would
have gone against him–Respondent in affidavit-in-evidence has improved his
case–Testimony of respondent/tenant is not confidence inspiring–Evidence of
appellant/landlord is consistent with pleadings and veracity of appellant landlord could not
he shaken in cross-examination and no re-butting evidence has been brought on record by
respondent tenant–There is nothing on record that appellant made specific demand about
payment of water and conservancy charges from respondent–Held: Appeal is allowed on
ground of default Appeal accepted. PLJ 1996 Karachi 48
Ss. 21 & 16–Tenent–Ejectment of–Suit for–High Court as an Appellate Authority and appeal
being in continuation of ejectment application, could exercise powers under Section 16 of
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance in a fit cases and non-compliance of order passed by
High Court would attract penal provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the
Act–Respondent/tenant has not made compliance of order passed by High Court–There
has been intentional non-compliance of Courts order–Held: Defence of tenant is struck
off–Order accordingly. PLJ 1996 Karachi 45
Ss. 21 & 22 read with Section 20 of General Clauses Act—Ejectment of respondents from
premises on ground of personal bona fide need–Execution of agreement between parties
for lease of rented premises for 3 years after ejectment orders–Appellant filed execution
petition and petition under Section 20 of General Clauses Act, both were dismissed by Rent
Controller–Challenge to–Whether compromise or agreement between parties could be
executed between parties without permission of Rent Controller–Question of–In view of
explanation to Section 22 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, in execution
proceedings relating to order of ejectment, no payment, compromise or agreement shall be
valid unless such payment, compromise or agreement is made before or with permission of
authority passing order–Deed has been executed between parties without permission of
Rent Controller passing ejectment order, therefore, lease-deed shall not be valid hence

learned Rent Controller erred in not allowing execution application filed by appellant for
ejectment of respondent. PLJ 1998 Karachi 446
Ss. 21 read with S. 18–Eviction application–Acceptance of–Appeal against–Main object of
S. 18 is that the tenant must have positive knowledge about the change in ownership–Even
an eviction application filed by a new owner is sufficient notice to the tenant about change in
ownership–Appellant had her self stated that said notice was served upon her, besides no
question was put up to respondent’s witness in cross-examination on this point–Held : Said
notice was served upon appellant and there is relationship of landlord and tenant between
parties. PLJ 1997 Karachi 1
Ss. 5 & 10–Ejectment of tenant–Default in payment of rent–Ground for–Challenge
to–Statement of landlord cannot be believed regarding default particularly when landlord did
not produce any record to show in shape of receipt or register about receipt of payment of
rent or any other proof to show that he had issued receipts as claimed by him–Verbal
statement of landlord could not be believed on basis of technicalities unless landlord had
produced some evidence regarding his conduct to show it to be justified for remaining silent
for long time and regarding mode of payment of rent. PLJ 1996 Karachi 612
Ss. 5 & 10–Tenancy in absence of agreement–Mode of payment and computation of
default–In absence of any mutual agreement, tenancy would be covered by provisions to
sections 5 and 10 of Ordinance–In all those cases, if there is no existence of any written
agreement but tenancy is being carried on in accordance to any verbal agreement, then
Rent Controller is first bound to determine mode of payment i.e. daily, weekly, monthly,
yearly or at the will of parties–Held: It is only after determining mode of payment of rent,
Rent Controller would decide as to whether default has been committed or not. PLJ 1996
Karachi 612
Ss.16(1) & 8 — Fixation of Fair Rent — Challenge to — Rent Controller maintained agreed
rent between parties as Fair Rent — Tenant failed to prove pressure coercion by landlady in
arriving at agreement — Even otherwise all ingredients of Section 8 of the ordinance were
satisfied by mutually agreed rate –Ex Facie order by Rent Controller appeared equitable
and lawful — Moreover, by expressing desire to vacate premises by tenant on specific date,
it became no body’s case — Order of determination of Fair Rent maintained in appeal. PLJ
1993 Karachi 245
Tenant–Ejectment of–Case of–Ordinarily a landlord is entitled to use his property to the best
of his discretion and choice and without any restraint as right to hold, acquire and possess a
property is even guaranteed under constitution there are exceptional circumstances tending
to show that requirement of premises for personal use was not coupled with good faith. PLJ
1996 Karachi 682
Tenant–Ejectment of–Ground of subletting premises to real brother–Appellant No. 2 was
brother of Appellant No. 1 and no consideration has been passed on to appellant No. 1,
therefore, it could not be said that subletting has taken place–Contention of–Appellant No. 2
says that he is the brother of appellant No. 1 but he could not be termed as tenant within the
meaning of section 2 (j) of Ordinance 1979–Held, Appellant No. 2 could not be said to be

heir of appellant No. 1 to be in occupation of premises after death of tenant- PLJ 1996
Karachi 130
Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal requirement–Eviction was sought on refusal to agree to
exhorbitant rate of rent–Contention of–Held : Mere demand of higher rent does not by itself
disentitle a landlord to seek ejectment of his. tenant on ground of personal requirement but
this circumstance coupled with other facts and grounds would give rise to a reasonable
inference that desire of landlord was not justified and was rather tainted with malice and
ulterior motives. PLJ 1996 Karachi 682
Tenant–Ejectment of–Petition dismissed by Rent Controller–Challenge to–No agreement of
tenancy produced by either side–Presumption as to date of payment of rent–Held: In the
absence of the agreement of tenancy of date mutually fixed for payment of rent, rent for the
month of June would fall due for payment within 60 days after close of June i.e., on or about
29th August while rent for the month of July would be payable on or about 30th of
September. PLJ 1996 Karachi 655
Tenant–Ejectment of–Petition dismissed—Challenge to–Appellant’s attorney having refused
to accept rent sent by cheque, respondent was left with no alternative but to deposit rent in
office of Controller–Appellant himself having created circumstances to manifest that he was
not inclined to accept rent sent through cheque, he is legally not entitled to make a
grievance that rent was not paid–Claim of appellant for enhancement of rent from Rs.
1000/- to Rs. 1200/- p.m. after expiry of agreement cannot be accepted for the reason that
with the expiry of tenure, agreement came to an end and same being unregistered could not
be legally enforced–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Karachi 682
Tenant–Ejectment of–Section 8, 9 & 15 of Rent Ordinance has been declared un-Islamic by
Shariat Court to be in direct conflict with Holy Quran & Sunnah–Contention of–It is an
admitted fact that ejectment application was filed much prior to decision of Federal Shariat
court of Pakistan and said decision would not have a retrospective effect upon the
provisions of section 15 of ordinance–Held Article 203 (2D) Constitution of 1973, state that
no such decision shall be deemed to take effect before expiry of period within which an
appeal may be preferred to the Hon’able Supreme Court or where an appeal has been so
preferred, before disposal of such appeal– PLJ 1996 Karachi 130
to establish that demised premises were declared and notified to be evacuee trust property,
there is hardly any merit in contention that respondents had no title to property or that Rent
Controller had no jurisdiction to proceed with ejectment application–It is admitted that
appellant No. 1 at no point of time paid any amount of rent to respondents and thereby he
committed a wilful default–Requirement of premises for use of respondents was bona [ides
and in good faith–Held : Non payment of rent at all and lack of evidence in rebuttal renders
case of appellant No. 1 hopeless and without any plausible defence–Appeal dismissed. PLJ
1996 Karachi 426
Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959
Ejectment application–Personal bona fide need of landlord–Ejectment ordered by Rent
Controller–Challenge to–Whether non-appearance of respondent/landlord and his
representation through attorney in court was fatal to his case–Question of–It will not be in

interest of justice to lay down that in every case where party does not appear or engages
his appearance through attorney, adverse inference should be drawn against him–Such
rule, if laid down, would result into great hardship in cases where parties, for instance,
reside abroad, who will have to sue and defendant themselves through their
attorney–Respondent land-lord constituted his real brother as his attorney who is well
versed with circumstances of family and is not stranger and he satisfactorily deposed about
bonafide personal use of his brother–Evidence adduced by appellant on record does not
satisfactorily rebut bona fide personal requirement of respondent in respect of shop in
dispute–Held : Non-appearance of respondent and his representation through attorney in
court was not fatal to case–Held further : Concurrent finding of two courts below in favour of
respondent land-lord cannot be interfered–Appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. PLJ
1998 SC 1756
S. 13(2)(vi)–Contention that shop and Khokha were not in dilapidated condition and no
reconstruction was required which hardly needs any consideration as it is not obligatory for
landlord to prove that disputed premises were in dilapidated condition and more so, no such
embargo has been laid down in Section 13(2)(vi) of Ordinance VI of 1959 to prove
dilapidated condition of premises. PLJ 2001 SC 1398
S. 13(2)–Default–Contention of learned counsel for appellants that respondent has
withdrawn rent, as such; default, if any, has been waived, it is suffice to observe that it is
well settled law that mere withdrawal of rent does not amount to waiver of right of land lord
to apply for eviction on ground of default. PLJ 2003 Quetta 155 [P. 160] D
S. 13(2)–Deposit of rent by tenant without mentioning name of land-lord–Effect–Rent
deposited by appellants without mentioning name of land lord and number of shop, was not
a lawful tender within meaning of Section 13(2) (i) of Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction
Ordinance and learned Rent Controller rightly ordered for eviction of appellants from
premises in dispute on ground of default in payment of rent. PLJ 2003 Quetta 155
S. 13(2)–Due tendering of rent–Meaning of–Rent for disputed period was deposited by
tenants with Rent Controller within due time but name of person in whose favour deposit
was made was not mentioned–Similarly Municipal number of shop was also not
mentioned–Only question which needs consideration is as to whether such a deposit can be
termed/considered due tendering of rent within meaning of Section 13(2) of Urban Rent
Restriction Ordinance, 1959–According to learned counsel, it can be; because appellants
have deposited rent in time but due to inadvertence they have not mentioned name of land-
lord and number of shop in bank challans–Moreover, land-lord has withdrawn rent, as such;
he cannot claim that tenants have committed any default and asked for eviction on ground
of default–At best it can be termed as technical default but not willful or deliberate
one–Therefore, learned Rent Controller should have exercised discretion in favour of
appellants in view of wording of Section 13(2) (1) of Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance,
1959. PLJ 2003 Quetta 155 [P. 158] A
S. 13(2)–Lawful tender of rent–It has come on record through evidence of respondent that
both appellants were depositing rent in his favour till December 1998 but thereafter they
suddenly started depositing rent without mentioning his name in relevant column of

challan–This assertion of respondent/land-lord has not been rebutted by appellants–Even in
their statements before Rent Controller they have not offered any explanation for non
mentioning name of land-lord/respondent in bank challan–Nor had they stated that this
omission was inadvertently–In such circumstances it can be safely concluded that omission
of land-lord’s name was deliberate and not due to some inadvertence and deposit of rent
without mentioning name of land-lord cannot be termed as lawful tender. PLJ 2003 Quetta
155 [P. 160] C
S. 14–Art. 185(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973–Leave to appeal is granted in two petitions
to consider inter alia contention of petitioner that whether subsequent application for
eviction filed by respondent before Rent Controller on ground of personal and bona fide
requirement of shop alongwith a `Khokha’ was barred on principle of res judicata contained
in Section 14 of Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, as previous application filed by
respondent for eviction of petitioner from `Khokha’ on ground of personal and bona fide
requirement was dismissed on merits which attained finality. PLJ 2001 SC 1398
S. 14–Moot question was regarding applicability of Section 14 of Ordinance VI of 1959 to
consider as to whether order passed in previous round of litigation by learned Rent
Controller does constitute res judicata for filing fresh eviction application which was
previously rejected–Held: Previous order of learned Rent Controller that Khokha was not
required for personal bona fide use would not constitute a bar as contained in Section 14 of
Ordinance VI of 1959 for filing fresh eviction application which would be examined in light of
changed scenario and decided on its own merits–There is no denial of fact that
circumstances cannot remain static and unchanged for an indefinite period which cannot be
ignored and thus repeated and successive eviction application can be filed subject to
availability of changed situation. PLJ 2001 SC 1398
S. 14–Rejection of an earlier application will not always act as a bar under Section 14 of
Ordinance even in cases where eviction is sought for reconstruction as every fresh need or
desire to reconstruct would give a fresh cause of action–Law of constructive res judioata as
enunciated by Section under reference would only come into play when on identical
reasons and in identical circumstances, after earlier unsuccessful attempt, ejectment of
tenant is subsequently, once again, sought–It does not need much imagination to
appreciate that a building which did not need demolishing at a certain time would not
become so deteriorated after lapse of a dozen or so years, as to warrant demolition or
reconstruction.” PLJ 2001 SC 1398
S. 15 & 13(2)(VI) & 13(5)–Ejectment of tenant on ground of reconstruction–In case any
person who desires to file eviction application on ground of personal requirement and
reconstruction has to be landlord and owner’ of premises too–From per usal of section
13(2)(VI) main condition for allowing application on ground of reconstruction is satisfaction
of Rent Controller–If landlord is not owner of property and obtains sanction for
reconstruction in name of actual owner, same cannot be said to be invalidated–Appellants
applied for sanction from Municipal Corporation in name of K deceased who is pre-
decessor-in-interest because property still exists in revenue record in his name and
sanction was granted by Municipal Corporation to appellants for reconstruction of new

building on site i.e. property in dispute–No objection was raised by Municipal Corporation at
the time of granting approved map in favour of appellants, in as much as representative of
Municipal Corporation appeared before Court and tendered building permit and approved
map in evidence–No objection was raised at that time–Even otherwise after death of K
deceased appellants have been admitted as landlords of premises in dispute by
respondents–It has been held by Supreme Court that if sanction plan is not in name of
actual landlords, still they are protected under provisions of section 13(5) of
Ordinance–Held : Plea that they did not have proper approved map in their favour is devoid
of force and approved map could not be invalidated on said ground. PLJ 1998 Quetta 128
S. 15–Ejectment petition by landlord on ground of personal need–Whether landlord is
required to disclose nature of business which he intends to set up–Question of-:It is not
requirement of law that description of business intended to be started in premises in dispute
land necessarily be given by landlord–If landlord was going to start new business in
premises in dispute, he need not state nature of his business either in ejectment petition or
in his statement before Rent Controller–Appellant in his statement has stated that he is
jobless and has not vacated any premises nor rented out any premises in same
vivinity–Said portion of statement of landlord was not rebutted–Held : Personal requirement
was independently proved–Appeal without merit is accordingly dismissed. PLJ 1998 Quetta
297
S. 15–Ejectment petition on ground of nuisance–It has come on record that buses of
appellant picked and dropped passengers in front of shop and it has also come on record
that house of respondent is adjacent to shop in dispute–Even respondent and his witnesses
have not denied pick and drop of passengers from shop in dispute–Landlord has proved
that passengers are picked and dropped in morning and evening due to which front of his
house is always overcrowded and it has become difficult for him to use passage of his
house–Held : Act of pick and drop by respondent itself is source of perpetual nuisance at
time of arrival and departure of house–Issue of nuisance has also been proved same is
decided in affirmative. PLJ 1998 Quetta 297
S. 15–Eviction of tenants on ground of demolition of shops in question and inclusion of the
same in Imam Bargah–Rent Controller ordered eviction of tenants on such
ground–Validity–Objection that eviction applications were not properly filed was repelled on
the ground that no such objection was taken before Rent Controller–Such objection was
taken for the first time in appeal before the High Court where upon respondents filed
resolution of the Anjuman authorising its president to conduct the proceedings on behalf of
said Anjuman–Eviction application was thus, properly filed by respondents. PLJ 2001
Quetta 1
S. 15–Personal requirement and default–Ground of–Eviction application-Dismissal
of–Challenge to—Facts deposed by witnesses and Attorney of appellant have
independently proved factum of appellant having no other house besides house in dispute
at Quetta–It is not a requirement of law that landlady should come and depose about her
personal requirement–Attorney who appeared before court has deposed about personal
requirement of appellant and her children–Statement of Attorney was not shaken–Learned

Rent Controller has wrongly decided question of personal requirement against
appellant–Regarding default, mere production of rent challan is not sufficient to prove that
rent has been deposited–Tenant is under legal obligation to prove that no default has been
committed by him specifically when ground of default has been agitated by
landlady–Respondent deposited rent for Sept. 1993 in year 1994, therefore, tenant had
failed to show that he had deposited rent within 60 day of alleged default–Thus respondent
committed default in payment of rent–Appeal accepted and Eviction application filled by
appellant is allowed. PLJ 1998 Quetta 175
S. 15–Provisions of C.P.C.–Applicability to proceeding under Balochistan Urban Rent
Restriction Ordinance, 1959–Extent–Plea taken in eviction application not supported by
evidence on record but different plea set up in evidence–Effect–Provisions of C.P.C. though
not applicable strictly yet the principles thereof were applicable to rent applications–Facts
alleged in pleadings have to be proved by producing evidence–Where a party puts to
jnention material facts in plaint, constituting cause of action, such party would not be
permitted to lead evidence unless amendment was allowed in that behalf–Neither a party
could be allowed to lead evidence, which was at variance with pleadings, nor could be
permitted to depart from pleadings, and prove a case not set up in plaint–Respondents plea
in eviction application was that by demolition of shops they intended to include the area in
Imam-Bargah so as to expand the same–Representative of respondent in his evidence
before Rent Controller had altogether changed his stand by stating that they wanted to
reconstruct new shops in place of old shops and for that purpose they had obtained
sanction from the authorities–Main ground of eviction of tenant, was thus, not proved–Rent
Controller, thus, had erred in holding that assertions set up in eviction application stood
proved entitling landlords to get tenants evicted therefrom–Order of eviction passed by Rent
Controller was set aside in circumstances. PLJ 2001 Quetta 1
S., 15 read with S. 13 (5-B)–Restoration of possession of rented shop to appellant after
fixation of increased rent by Civil Judge–Challenge to–Whether rent could be increased
when property was not demolished and reconstructed for which purpose it was got vacated
from appellant–Question of–In case where no addition, improvement or alteration of non-
residential building or rented land has been carried out at landlords, expenses and at the
request of tenant: determination of fair rent of such building or rented land within meaning of
sub-section (1) & 2(2) of S. 5 of Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 would
not he permissible for future increase of fair rent—Landlords have led no evidence that
possession of shop in question was restored to appellant/tenant after re-construction of
shop which could have entitled them to claim for fixation of rent of premises in view of
criteria provided under section 13(5-B) of Balochistan Ordinance–Held: Impugned Order
passed by Civil Judge was not sustainable in law–Appeal accepted and order set aside.
PLJ 1998 Quetta 65
Ss. 13(2) & 13(6)–Difference between S. 13(2) and 13(6) of Rent Restriction Ordinance,
1959–There is mark difference between provisions of Section 13(2) and Section 13 (6) of
Ordinance–In former case Rent Controller has been given discretion not to grant ejectment
application on ground of non-payment of rent, if facts of case so warrant–Words “the

Controller may make an order directing tenant to put land-lord in possession of building”
have been used in Section 13(2) of Ordinance whereas in Section 13(6) has been provided
that if a tenant makes default of rent order passed under above sub-section, his defence
shall be struck off and land lord be put into possession of property–Use of word “shall” in
Section 13(6) of Ordinance is in contrast to word “may” used in sub-section (2) of Section
13, of Ordinance, therefore, Rent Controller has discretion in matter falling under Section
13(2) of Ordinance. PLJ 2003 Quetta 155
Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979
S. 16(2)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default in payment of rent–Ground of–Striking off defence of
tenant–Challenge to–It is matter of record that Miscellaneous Rent Case No. 1544 of 1991
was filed by appellant in same court where he deposited rent–Payment for period of
January to July 1991 was disputed as appellant claimed to have paid but respondent denied
to have received same–Order of deposit of arrears of rent for said period, was passed at
back of appellant–In substance, due rent has been deposited, but technically, rent order
dated 23-9-1991 has not been complied with–Held: There is force in contention that had
appellant knowledge of rent order requiring him to deposit arrears and monthly rent in court,
he would not have moved on 25-9-1991 Miscellaneous Rent Case No. 1544 of 1991 for
deposit of rent in court–Appeal accepted and case remanded to trial court. PLJ 1994
Karachi 315
S.15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Finding of Rent Controller as to default in
payment of rent is un-exceptionable–Finding on point of subletting is not open to
interference because respondent filed affidavit that appellant had sublet premises to Kallan,
but appellant has not denied same in his affidavit-in-evidence–Issue about personal
requirement of shop has also rightly been decided in favour of respondent–Held: There is
no merit in these appeals–Appeals dismissed. PLJ 1992 Karachi 97
S.16(2)–Tenant–Non-deposit of arrears of rent by–Striking off defence of–Challenge
to–There is total non-compliance of order of Rent Controller which had forced him to pass
order striking off defence of appellant–Held: Appellant himself had chosen not to deposit
rent as ordered by Controller and in these circumstances, Controller was perfectly justified
in striking off defence of appellant and directing his ejectment from shop in dispute–Appeal
dismissed. PLJ 1994 Karachi 397
S. 14(4)–Tenant handed over Possession of property to landlord for
reconstruction–Restoration of same dimension & location–Determination of–Appliction
to–Dismissal of–Challenge to–It will be just and proper, if Rent Controller determines
location and dimension of shop taken from appellant–Held : Courts are established to solve
problems of public and not to create problems for them. PLJ 1996 Karachi 410
S. 15 read with S. 12((2) of Civil Proceeding Code, 1908–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal
bonafide need (landlord claims that he was unemployed and wanted to run shop)–Ground
of–Eviction allowed–Concealment of fact/fraud and misrepresentation by
landlord–Challenge to–Eviction application was filed on 25.11.1989 and landlord got service
on 4.11.1990–Therefore, on the day when eviction application u/s 15 of Ordinance 1979
was filed, landlord was not in service–It is a case where landlord has concealed a material

fact which has misled tenant to frame his defence, it does not. amount to fraud or
misrepresentation–Held : Case remanded to trial court for giving opportunity to parties to
lead fresh evidence. PLJ 1997 Karachi 977
Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1952
S. 13–AJK Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 44–Relationship of landlord and tenant,
existence of–Whether order of deposit of Rent during pendency of Civil Court with regard to
existence of relationship of landlord and tenant are illegal–Question of–Mere pendency of
civil suit in court. cannot defeat prima facie established title for purpose of rent cases under
Rent Restriction ordinance, moreso, when documents produced in support of title by
respondent are neither disputed nor denied by petitioner through replication–Held : Order
passed by Rent Controller is just and fair–Petition without merit is according dismissed. PLJ
1997 (AJ & K) 126
S. 4–Determination of fair rent–Whether section 14 of Ordinance conies into play while
making inquiry u/s 4–Question of–Perusal of Section-4, which deals with fixing of fair rent,
reveals that provisions identical to sub-section 8 of Section 14 is not expressly available
while holding inquiry under section 4–Sub-section 8 of section 14 finds place in section
which deals with eviction of tenant by land-lord–Held : Proceedings before Rent Controller
were not under section 14, thus sub-section 8 of Section 14 stricto senso is not applicable.
PLJ 1997 (AJ & K) 126
S. 13 (2) (iv) Tenent–Ejectment of–Conversion of a residential building into a commercial
one after reconstruction–Ground of–Whether provisions of Section 13 (2) (iv) of Ordinance
prevent a residential building from being converted, after construction, into a commercial
one–Leave to appeal is granted to consider this question–Granted–Leave to appeal. PLJ
1996 SC 4

Section 12(2) is also apply on Rent case

PLJ 1996 Kar 55

________________________________________
2018 CLC 1471 Sindh
d Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) (a) 1350 Sindh 15-Civil Procedural Code (V of 1908), S.12 (2)
- Application for setting aside aside the order - Allegation of fraud and landlord-Effect against
misrepresentation - Tenant contended that the court could not dismiss his application without any
framing issues and recording evidence --- Landlord contended that the matter was already decided on
all relevant available forums - Validity - tenant after the contesting and the case is available to all the
remedies Her, could not re-agitate the same issue under the application of S. 12 (2), CPC and that too
much of the first forum, which is the review of the judgments and orders, depriving the decree-holder
the fruits of the decree-Remedy provided under s. 12 (2), C.P.C. will not be available as a regular suit,
and the court can not stop such application without any framing of the issues and recording evidence of
the parties - Remedy of filing application under S. 12 (2), C.P.C. Tenant was filed under the application of

12 (2), C.P.C. In order to retain the possession of the rented premises with self by absurd assertions ---
Record did not even remotely suggest that any fraud or misrepresentation was committed with the
Court - Rent Controller. CPC The unauthorized or infirmity is noticed in the impugned order --- the
constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly (a ) 1471
_______________________________________
2018 CLC Note 89 [Peshawar (D.I. Khan Bench)] Before Shakeel Ahmad, J ABDUR REHMAN-Petitioner vs.
Rana FEROZ UD DIN and others-.- Respondents W.P. No. 324-D of 2015, decided on 8th November,
2017. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) - S. 13 (4) -Eviction of tenant-
Personal bona fide need of landlordScope. Non-appearance of son of landlord (for whom the premises
were needed) as evidence of availability of other shops owned by landlord - Effect..Petitioner / tenant
contended that son of landlord, for whom personal need was claimed, was not produced In evidence
before Rent Tribunal and that other shops of landlord were also deprived of vacant in the subject
premises - Respondent / landlord argued that the appearance of his son was not necessary and it was
his prerogative to choose his own personal occupation for personality- Validity- Landlord had said that
his son was unemployed and he intended to establish a business for his son in the suit and the point of
view on the landlord also said - Petitioner himself admits that all the shops of landlord were occupied by
Some other tenants, meaning that there was no shop vacant for occupation, use and business of the son
of landlord-if after order of eviction, son will not occupy the shop in a month or wou Ld re-let within two
months in terms of S. 13 (4) of Khyber Pakktunkhwa Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, may apply
for Rent Controller for restoration of the possession of the non-appearance of the non-appearance of
son of land. The box was neither necessary nor Jatal to the petition for eviction-No illegality or infirmity
was found in the impugned judgment by two Courts below, the constitutional petition was dismissed
accordingly. [Paras. 9, 10, 11 & 13 of the decision Nisar Ahmad Sheikh v. Additional District and Sessions
Judge. District Burhan Latif Khaisori for Petitioner. Ahmad Ali Khan Marwat for Respondents. South and
another 2017 MLD 605 ref.
________________________________________
Co-share r could initiate ejectment proceedings against the tenants without joining the other Co-sharers
2018 MLD 298 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : BAHADAR KHAN
Side Opponent : ABDUL KHALIQ
Ss.2 & 15---Ejectment petition---Ground of personal bona fide need of landlord---Landlord being one of
the legal heirs/Co-share rs of original landowner---Entitlement of Co-share r alone to file ejectment
petition---Scope---Tenant contended that ejectment petition was not maintainable as all legal heirs/Co-
share rs had not moved the Trial Court---Landlord contended that anyone of the Co-share rs could move
Trial Court after the demise of original owner (their father) and that they required demised property for
personal need in wake of changed circumstances---Validity---Record revealed that the evidence led by
the landlord was in-consistent with the ejectment application which could not be shaken in cross-
examination by the tenant who had not produced any evidence in rebuttal rather made various

admissions as mentioned in the eviction order, passed by the Rent Controller who after appreciating the
evidence and considering the material aspects of the case had allowed the ejectment application---
Section 2 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,1979 stipulated the definition of "landlord" which meant
the owner of the premises and included a person who was for the time being authorized or entitled to
receive rent in respect of such premises---Application for ejectment filed by Co-share r could not be
defeated on the ground that remaining Co-share rs were not joined as applicants in the ejectment
petition---Co-owner could file ejectment proceedings against a tenant without impleading other co-
owners---Mother of applicant had also expired to whom the tenants were paying rent and after her
death tenants had not paid rent to any of the legal heirs as per their own admission---Co-share r could
initiate ejectment proceedings against the tenants without joining the other Co-sharers---No illegality or
infirmity having been noticed in concurrent findings of the courts below, constitutional petition was
dismissed accordingly.
TENANCY LAW IN PAKSITAN
SUBLET

2018 SCMR 443 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION
OF PAKISTAN
SAMI-UR-REHMAN
S. 15(2)(iii)(a)---Ejectment of tenant---Grounds---'Handing over of possession' of rented premises to
some other person without consent of landlord---Scope---Contention of landlord was that tenant was
liable for ejectment for "handing over of possession to some other person " as according to the landlord
the tenant without the written consent of the landlord converted his sole proprietary concern into a
private limited company and handed over the possession of the said premises to the limited company
which was a juristic person and a separate entity and therefore, had sublet the premises and rendered
himself liable to ejectment; held, that the tenant had converted his sole proprietary concern into a
private limited company and at present the said private limited company was conducting business in the
subject premises---Rented premises had been handed over by a natural person i.e. tenant to a juristic
person i.e. private limited company---Distinct legal entity independent and separate from its Directors
had come into exclusive possession of the rented premises which was running business therein, paying
taxes in its own name, depositing rent with the Rent Controller from its own accounts and such change
had been brought without the consent or even the knowledge of the landlord which exposed the tenant
to the consequences as provided under S. 15(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---
'Handing over of possession" of the rented premises to some other person under S. 15(2)(iii)(a) of the
Ordinance exposed a tenant to eviction---Supreme Court directed the tenant to hand over the vacant
peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord within 30 days--- Appeal was allowed
accordingly.

2017 YLR 2468 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : SHAMS
Side Opponent : ZULFIQAR HUSSAIN
S. 17(2)(ii)(a)---sublet ting by tenant---Effect---Record showed that two persons other than the tenant
were in occupation of the shop and the tenant himself was an employee somewhere else---Tenant had
parted with the possession of the shop by sublet ting same---Appeal of tenant was dismissed along with
other applications.

2017 YLR 1873 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : SAMIUR REHMAN
Side Opponent : IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SOUTH KARACHI
S. 15---Eviction of tenant---sublet , proof of---Change of status of tenant---Tenant was a partnership firm
which was incorporated as private limited company---Landlord sought ejectment of tenant on the plea
that Managing Partner had sublet premises to a company---Ejectment application filed by landlord was
dismissed by Rent Controller but Lower Appellate Court reversed findings and passed eviction order---
Validity---In order to prove mischief of sublet ting as ground for eviction under law, two ingredients had
to be established; (i) parting with the possession of tenancy by tenant in favour of third party with
exclusive right of possession; and (ii) such parting with possession was done in lieu of compensation or
rent---Tenant, in the present case, was actively associated with partnership business and retained
control over tenancy premises with him---Tenant had not parted with possession---By incorporating
business as private limited company, tenant had not sublet the premises---High Court set aside order
passed by Lower Appellate Court as same was neither based on true appreciation of facts nor correct
legal standards were applied---Constitutional petition was allowed under circumstances.

Citation Name : 2017 YLR 1873 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : SAMIUR REHMAN
Side Opponent : IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SOUTH KARACHI
S. 15---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 105---sublet ---Preconditions---Word 'sublet ' is not
defined anywhere in law, courts have usually correlated it with meaning of word 'sublease'---Lease of
immovable property, according to S.105 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is transfer of right to enjoy
such property---To create a lease or sublease, a right to exclusive possession and enjoyment of property
had to be conferred on another person---If there was no parting with the possession, neither sublease
nor sublet ting could be achieved.

Citation Name : 2017 YLRN 199 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : MOHIUDDIN KHAN
Side Opponent : STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
Ss. 42 & 54---Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), Ss. 2(i) & 5---Registration Act (XVI of
1908), S. 17---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 105 & 107---License agreement--- Registered
document---Effect--- Plaintiff sought declaration of relationship of landlord and tenant on the basis of
license agreement---Burden of proof---Lease and license---Scope---License agreement was executed in
favour of plaintiff but he sought declaration of relationship of "landlord and tenant" on the basis of said
agreement---Validity---Burden of proof viz-a-viz relationship as being claimed by the plaintiff in his
capacity as tenant and not a licensee was upon the plaintiff---Plaintiff had failed to discharge such
burden---Plaintiff was licensee of defendant and not a tenant and failed to discharge burden to prove
that he was tenant---Intention of the parties had to be ascertained to reach at a right and just
conclusion as to whether impugned agreement was license or lease---Plaintiff was given only a license---
Permission granted to the plaintiff as licensee was also revocable---Plaintiff upon expiry of license
agreement had no right to file suit for declaration---Plaintiff was allowed only to use the subject land for
car parking---Plaintiff could not assign, sublet or part with the possession of suit property to anyone
else---License agreement was not meant to create a relationship of landlord or tenant between the
parties---If an agreement was compulsorily registerable then a certified copy of the registered deed had
to be produced---When agreement was not registerable, original deed duly attested should be produced
and accepted in proof of relationship of landlord and tenant---Impugned license agreement was for
three years and had not been registered---Said agreement could not be termed as "tenancy agreement"-
--License agreement could not be considered as lease agreement---Rights under lease were right in rem
and same were assignable and transferable---Plaintiff in the present case did not acquire any rights of
transferable nature---Occupation of plaintiff upon the suit land after expiry of license agreement was
not only illegal but was of a trespasser---Mere occupation of an immovable property and its use in
particular manner did create license and not a lease---Possession in case of lease should be exclusive
coupled with interest otherwise possession could not be deemed as exclusive---License period, in the
present case, had already expired and plaintiff had lost right to use the subject property---Oral evidence
viz-a-viz intention of parties could not be given weight in presence of written document i.e. license
agreement---Lease for a period of more than one year could only be created by means of a registered
document/ instrument--- License agreement in the present case was for three years but was not a
registered document---Document for a term exceeding one year lease was compulsorily registerable---
Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2017 PCrLJN 254 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ABDUL LATEEF
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU ISLAMABAD
Ss. 9(a) & (b)---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Case of further inquiry---Sub-contractor---Causing loss to
government---Petitioner was a sub-contractor who was under investigation by NAB along with other
accused persons who were officials and contractors of Oil and Gas Development Corporation Limited---
Allegation against all the accused persons was that they caused loss to the Corporation to the extent of
Rs. 182.025 million for non-supply of High Speed Diesel for which advance payment had already been

received by them---Validity---Accused was sub-contractor who was not officially or as per contract, as
such he would not have known that main contractor had no legal right to sublet a part of contract to
him--- Accused played a lesser role in the scam and his case was one of further inquiry---Pre-arrest bail
was confirmed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2017 CLCN 201 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASIF
Side Opponent : The VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
S. 13--- Eviction petition--- Grounds of sublet ting and encroachment---Default of payment of rent not
alleged in the pleadings---Verdict of the court in favour of landlord on non-pleaded ground---Scope---
Petitioner submitted that the Appellate Court had given a verdict regarding non-pleaded default, which
was not lawful---Respondent contended that the default had taken place after filing of eviction petition
when they stopped payment of rent---Validity---Admitted position was that in the eviction application
there was no allegation of default as such, there was no prayer of eviction on account of default---
Petitioners did not pay or deposit the rent after filing eviction petition and failed to deposit the rent in
the court even under protest which they could have done to substantiate their claim of ownership---In
such a situation, not only technically but also actually a default had taken place, and court could take
judicial notice of the same especially when the tenant willfully denied the relationship and such denial
could not sustain under the law.

Citation Name : 2017 CLCN 201 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASIF
Side Opponent : The VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
S. 13---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 114 & 115---Eviction petition---Written admission of
tenancy by the tenant---Tenant attributing said admission to mistake of his counsel---Relationship
between parties as landlord and tenant---Estoppel, principle of---Applicability---Landlord/respondent
contended that once admitting relationship of tenancy through reply to notice of landlord, tenants could
not take back his version---Petitioners/tenants denied tenancy contending that their late father had
purchased demised property from late father of landlord through oral agreement to sell---
Petitioners/tenants attributed their earlier admission to the mistake of their counsel---Validity---
Definition of estoppel was clear that the intention was necessary---In the present case,
petitioners/tenants forcefully alleged that they did not instruct their counsel regarding the admission in
the reply---Petitioners brought on record the legal notice issued to them, in which landlord leveled
allegations of sublet ting and encroachment of back portion of shop---If the counsel was responsible for
some professional dishonesty or misconduct, it was obligatory for the petitioners to take action against
him before the appropriate forum---Without doing anything in this respect, only words of the
petitioners regarding the denial of such unambiguous and unqualified admission was not sufficient---
Unambiguous admission of tenancy existed in the reply of notice by the counsel of the petitioners---
Neither the petitioners nor their (late) father tried to get executed a conveyance deed (for oral sale) or
any documentation regarding the property in question---Petitioners remained unsuccessful to dispute

the relationship upto the Supreme Court---Unambiguous admission of tenancy by the petitioner in their
reply of the legal notice came in the way of the petitioner for denial of tenancy according to Art. 115 of
Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and there remained no impediment for Rent Controller to declare that the
relationship between the petitioners and respondent was that of tenant and landlord---In the presence
of such a robust and convincing documentary evidence, not only the findings of the Rent Controller but
also the Appellate Court regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant were fully
justified---Conduct of the petitioners was sufficient to disentitle them from any relief, they had nothing
in their hands to establish themselves as the owner of the property, and without any justification
denying the relationship of landlord and tenant---Status of petitioners as a tenant was established and
they tried to malign the title of the respondent over the property in question in which they could not
succeed up to the Supreme Court---Conduct of petitioners demanded that they were liable to the
eviction being an improper tenant---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2017 MLD 53 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AKBAR CHOHAN
Side Opponent : RENT CONTROLLER, ISLAMABAD
Ss. 17, 4, 24, 25, 26 & 28---Eviction of tenant---Proceedings before Rent Controller---Limit---Non-
completion of eviction proceedings within stipulated period---Effect---Rent Controller was bound to
complete eviction proceedings expeditiously as possible but not later than four months of the date of
first hearing after service of summons on tenant---Rent Controller had to satisfy himself as to whether
the reasons put forward by the landlord were justified---Rent Controller had to frame issues and record
evidence when parties had denied the facts---No procedure for holding inquiry had been provided in
Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001---Rent Controller had framed issues and record evidence of
the parties before pronouncement of order---When default and sublet ting was on record then framing
of issues and recording of evidence was not required---Procedure for service of summons should be
applied keeping in view the statutory period of four months---Procedure in terms of O. V of C.P.C. was
against the mandate of S. 25(3) of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001---If penalty provision was
applied in appropriate cases where parties were causing intentional delay then matter could be resolved
within the statutory period---Legislative intent had to be followed in its essence and any deviation from
the said concept would lead into negation and denial of rights under the law---Courts were guardian to
protect the intention of legislature as they were bound to follow the same---Eviction petitions had not
been finally disposed of within timeline prescribed under S.25(3) of Islamabad Rent Restriction
Ordinance, 2001---High Court disposed of constitutional petition and gave guidelines for Rent
Controllers to be kept in mind while dealing with ejectment petition.

Citation Name : 2016 YLR 1385 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : INAYATULLAH
Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN
Ss. 3, 4 & 5 (2)---Balochistan Land Lease Policy, 1988, Cls. 5, 7 & 12---Transfer of Property Act (IV of
1882), S. 41---Allotment of land---Cancellation of---Plea of bona fide purchaser---Scope---Contention of

plaintiffs was that they had purchased the suit land from the original allottees---Suit was decreed by the
Trial Court but same was dismissed by the Appellate Court---Validity---Allotment or lease by itself did
not create ownership rights---Allottee or lessee was required to remain in possession for 45 year to
acquire right of ownership and fulfilled the requirement as determined by Balochistan Land Lease Policy,
1988---Plaintiffs could not claim ownership rights on the basis of such transfer as it could not create
ownership/title in favour of so called transferee and subsequent purchaser---Lessee/allottee could not
sublet , mortgage and transfer in any manner the leased land---Allotments/transfers in question were in
violation of Balochistan Land Lease Policy, 1988 which stood automatically cancelled---Seller could not
transfer a title better than that he himself had---Original allottees were neither owner nor could have
transferred any ownership and title to the plaintiffs---Plaintiffs could not claim to be bona fide
purchasers when illegal allotment/lease stood refundable---Plaintiffs had got no locus standi to call in
question the orders passed by the competent authority with regard to terms and conditions of an
allotment/lease---Revision was dismissed with costs throughout in circumstances.
__________________________________________
When a tenant challenged the ownership of the landlord, the tenant first eject and then proceed in
accordance with law.
2016 Y.L.R P-274
2016 P.L.D Lah P-123
2014 P.L.D S.C P-347
2013 M.L.D P-1648
2012 M.L.D P-108
2012 Y.L.R P-1464
2011 C.L.C P-961
2009 P.L.D S.C P-546
2006 S.C.M.R P-1068 & 946
2005 C.L.C P-1758
2002 M.L.D P-384
1981 S.C.M.R P-1064
1978 S.C.M.R P-14
_____________________________________________
Tenant after expiry of period of such agreement had become a statutory tenant, thus, terms and
conditions thereof relating to rate of rent , time and mode of its payment would remain alive---Tenant
had not denied payment of advance rent for each 11 months in lump sum as per such agreement and
past practice---Tenant had denied default on first date of hearing by filing written statement
Ss.2(j) & 15(2)(ii) [as amended by Sindh rent ed Premises (Amendment) Ordinance (XIV of 2011)]---
Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss.17 & 49---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitution petition---
Ejectment---Ground of default in payment of rent for six (6) months and twenty (20) days after expiry of

period of unregistered lease agreement requiring tenant to pay advance rent in lump sum on 11 months
basis---Tenant's plea while denying such default was that lease agreement, being unregistered would
not create any right, title or interest in demised premises---Validity---Tenant after expiry of period of
such agreement had become a statutory tenant, thus, terms and conditions thereof relating to rate of
rent , time and mode of its payment would remain alive---Tenant had not denied payment of advance
rent for each 11 months in lump sum as per such agreement and past practice---Tenant had denied
default on first date of hearing by filing written statement---Tenant had paid rent for disputed period
through two pay orders with delay exceeding six months, thus, second proviso to S.15(2)(ii) of Sindh rent
ed Premises Ordinance, 1979 would not apply to the present case---Landlord had not sought
enforcement of any right, title or interest on the basis of such unregistered agreement, but had sought
eviction of tenant from demised premises---Right of ejectment for being statutory could be enforced in
respect of terms specified in lease agreement---Relief of ejectment not being in nature of right or
interest enforceable in accordance with lease deed---Unregistered document could be used and
received for collateral purposes---Non-registration of lease agreement would not be relevant for
disposal of appeal---Ejectment petition was accepted in circumstances.
2013 YLR 344 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.
Side Opponent : ABDUL GHAFFAR
______________________________________
Ss. 16 (1) & 16 (2)---Eviction petition---Tenant failing to deposit arrears of rent ---Striking off defence of
tenant---Tenant choose not to comply with the tentative rent order by the rent Controller---Supreme
Court observed best course for the tenant could have been to comply with the tentative rent order
under S. 16 (1) of the sindh rent ed Premises Ordinance, 1979 and to have contested the matter to its
logical conclusion---Tenant's right of defence had been rightly struck off in circumstances---Petition for
leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2018 SCMR 1720 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Syed ASGHAR HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD OWAIS