Ref.1992 S C M 2400(e).

---Ss.10(1) & 15 (2)(ii)---Clause as to pay7ment of rent contained in an expired tenancy agreement---Court could decline to enforce such clause if it was ambiguous or from the facts of the case it appeared that the parties had modified the same or had acted after the expiry of the tenancy agreement in manner different from what was provided therein.

---Ss. 10(1) & 15(2)(ii)---Interpretation of Ss.10(2)(ii) of the Ordinance---Clause as to the payment of monthly rent in advance contained in expired tenancy agreement---Parties by mutual agreement, introduced the mode of payment of rent, namely, that tenant upon receipt of monthly rent bill from land lord used to pay rent---Effect---Tenant., held, was entitled to the grace period of 60 days.

Ref.1992 S C M 2400(g).

---S.14---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Determination of ---Extent---Landlord, under provision of S.14,Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was relieved from the rigours of elaborate inquiry as to the good faith or his plea for requirement of the premises for personal use and to put him in possession thereof, in the shortest possible time.

Ref. 1992 S C M R 1158 (b)

11. Discontinuance of amenities and services.case law (1) No landlord shall discontinue or cause to be discontinued any service such as electricity, gas or water, except with the previous consent of the tenant or in compliance with the requisition of the concerned authority or after obtaining the direction of the Controller in this behalf.

(2) Where the landlord has discontinued or caused to be discontinued any service in contravention of sub-section (1), the tenant may make an application to the Controller for restoration thereof.

(3) Where the Controller is, after making such inquiry as he deems fit, satisfied that the service has been discontinued without sufficient cause, he shall make an order directing the landlord to have the service restored within such period as many be specified in the order.

(4) Where the landlord has failed to comply with the order of the Controller made under sub-section (3), the Controller may take necessary steps to get the service restored and recover the costs of such restoration from the landlord.

(5) Where the landlord has contravened the provisions of sub-section (1), he shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or with fine or with both.

CASE LAW.

---S. 11---See Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of appeal was granted to examine whether in view of the fact that landlady was in possession of residential accommodation of the to floor of the same building , could she press into service S. 14 of the Ordinance to seed eviction of tenant from commercial premises.

(12) Repairs. case law (1) Subject to the agreement, if the landlord fails to make such repairs or white-washing as may be necessary to keep the premises in proper shape, the Controller may, on application make to him by the tenant and after such inquiry as the Controller deems fit to make, direct that such repairs or white-washing may be made by the tenant and the cost thereof may be deducted from the rent payable to the landlord.

(2) Where any authority empowered by a law for the time being in force has required landlord to make such repairs within such period as may be specified by such authority and the landlord has made default in this behalf, such authority may require the tenant to make such repairs.

(3) Where the tenant has made the repairs as aforesaid the authority ordering the repairs shall, after due verification of the details of the expenditure incurred by the tenant, certify the cost of repairs and the tenant may thereupon deduct the amount so certified from the rent payable to the landlord.

13. Eviction.case law No tenant shall be evicted from the premises in his possession except in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance.

CASE LAW.

---S.13---See Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979),S.3(1).

Ref. 1998SCMR2092(a)&(d). ---Ss.13 & 15---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),Art. 115---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),Art. 185(3)---Default---Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant--Parties were inter-related inasmuch as the petitioner (tenant) was son-in-law of the respondent (landlord )---Respondent instituted ejectment case against the pe6titioner on ground of default ---Petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and stated that it was he who got the property transferred in the name of respondent and was allowed to occupy the same and he had spent huge amount of money toward his construction---Rent Controller and the High Court found that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties did exist and the passed for ejectment for the petitioner (tenant)---record did not show agreement of tenancy and admittedly respondent did not pass on any rent receipts to the petitioner ---Amount claim by the petitioner to have been spent by way of constructing the property was not supported by any voucher---Held, respondent was admitted to be the owner of the property and it was for the petitioner, who cancelled having been inducted in the premises by the respondent , to establish the nature of his position ---Where the parties were so closely related , it was not inconceivable that rents were being paid without proper documentation ---Absence of tenancy agreement was stated to be due to the fact that the tenancy was created before the promulgation of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance ,1979---Case being a classic one where in terms of article of 115 , Qanun-e-Shahadat ,1984 a person, put into possession as tenant or as licensee by another, was stopped from questioning the title at the inception of the one who inducted him, or except in clearly categorised cases the entitlement of such a one to repossess the same---When the respondent had obvious title to the property and he had led evidence to show that the petitioner was his tenant, the case was correctly decided on preponderance of evidence by the Courts below---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Ref.1998 SCMR 2374.

---S.13---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185 (3)---Landlord and tenant, relationship of ---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider contention that if tenant disputed relationship and claimed title to the property then it was for him to have question settled by Civil Court.

Ref. 1999 SCMR 348(b).

---S.13---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Landlord and tenant, relationship of ---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the contention that plea of tenant that disputed premises were purchased by him was not reflected in the pleadings and therefore, no issue was framed with regard to same in the proceedings, which could be co9ncluded as permitted in the relevant law.

Ref. 1999SCMR 348(c).

---S.13---Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.30---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),Art. 185(3)---Transferees of big mansion to whom P.T.O. had been issued---Relationship of landlord and tenant between such transferees and the occupants of such property---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider contention that directions given by High Court to the transferees of big mansion to obtain P.T.D. and to have property demarcated, were outside the scope of proceedings as defined in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

Ref. 1999 SCMR 348(e).

---S.13---Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation ) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.30---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)---Transferees of big mansion to whom P.T.O. had been issued--- Relationship of landlord and tenant between such transferees and the occupants of such property---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider contention that directions given by High Court to the transferees of big mansion to obtain P.T.D. and to have property demarcated, were outside the scope of proceedings as defined in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

Ref. 1999 SCMR 348(d).

---S.13---Displaced Persons (Compensation and ?Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958),S.30---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.53-A---Transferees of big mansion which had not yet been partitioned---Ejectment of tenants sought by co-transferees on ground of default by tenants---Three transferees or their successors out of 59 transferees had contested the joint owner's right to eject the tenants---Validity---Held, though joint transferees/joint owners of such big mansion could file ejectment proceedings under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, on the ground of default by tenant, yet they could not apply for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement till that time the property was partitioned and they got particular portions of property as their share---Ejectment order on ground of default would be for the benefit of the joint transferees/joint owners and not for the benefit of the joint owners filing ejectment proceedings, particularly keeping in view that 3 original transferees or their successors out of 59 transferees had contested the joint owner's right to eject the tenants.

Ref. 1999 SCMR 348(1).

---S.13---Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.30---Transferees of big mansion---Relationship of landlord and tenant between such transferees and the occupants---Provisional Transfer Order was issued to transferee as far back as 1959--- Full price had been paid but certain amounts as rent and other charges were yet to be paid before a P.T.D. could be obtained by the transferees--- Such situation of the matter would not detract the right of the transferees to let out big mansion or to file ejectment case in respect of the same or a portion thereof---By virtue of para. III of the Provincial Transfer Order, the transferees of big mansion were entitled to let out such transferred property--- Relationship of landlord and tenant came into existence between the transferees and the occupants by virtue of S30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) act, 1958.

1998 S C M R 348.

---S.13--- West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13---Eviction of tenant ---Co-owner can file ejectment proceedings against a tenant without impleading his other co-owners.

1998 S C M R 348.

---Ss. 13 & 15---Ejectment of tenant---Omission in the prayer clause o f a portion of the building would not disentitle the landlord from seeking ejectment from the entire leased out premises including the said omitted portion.

1996 S C M R 1178(g).

---S. 13---Transfer of property Act (IV of 1882), S. 105---Tenant paying to landlord specified amount in addition to rent---Jurisdiction of Rent Controller whether taken away, where relationship of landlord and tenant was no denied---Mere fact that tenant had paid specified amount in addition to rent, would not take away jurisdiction of Rent Controller in a case in which relationship of landlord and tenant was not denied---Provision of S . 105, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, would not alter the jurisdiction of Rent Controller for said section had nothing to do with the question, whether ejectment application was filed before Rent Controller or in Civil Court---Tenant having been paying rent to landlord and admitting such fact in their written statement, relationship of landlord and tenant between parties stood established and so also jurisdiction of Rent Controller to hear ejectment application.

Ref. 1993 S C M R 200(b).

14. Delivery of vacant possession. case law (1) Not withstanding anything contained in this Ordinance or any other law for the time being in force, the landlord of a building who is a widow or a minor whose both parents are dead or a salaried employee due to retire within the next six months or has retired or a person who is due to attain the age of sixty years, may, by notice in writing inform the tenant that he or she needs the building for personal use and require him to deliver vacan5t possession of the building within such time as may be specified in the notice, not being earlier than two months from the receipt thereof:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply where the landlord has rented out the building after he has retired or attained the age of sixty years or, as the case may be, has become widow or orphan.

(2) The landlord shall not be entitled to avail the benefit of sub-section (1) if he is in occupation of a building owned by him in any locality.

(3) Where the tenant has failed to deliver the possession of the building under sub-section (1), the Controller shall, on application by the landlord in this behalf, order eviction of the tenant from the building in a summary manner, by using such force as may be necessary.

CASE LAW.

S.14---See Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979),S.2(a).

Ref. 1998 SCMR 2114.

---S.14---Bona fide personal need of landlord---One of the co-landlords or one of the co-owners can seek ejectment on the ground of his personal requirement.

1998 S C M R 348.

---S.14---Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958, S.30---Transferee of big mansion which had not been partitioned--- Bona fide personal need of such transferee for his personal need was not competent till the properties were partitioned---Cases for ejectment on the ground of default by tenant by such transferees were, however, competent and the ejectmen5t order, if any, would be for the benefit of all the transferees and not for the exclusive benefit of the transferee applicants.

1998 S C M R 348.

---S. 14--- Widow, though she may not be the sole owner of a tenement and may be a co-owner, can seek ejectment under S.14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

1998 S C M R 348.

---S. 14 [as amended by Sindh Rented Premises (Amendment) Ordinance (XII of 1980)]----Applicability of S. 14 of the Ordinance---Provision of S. 14 of the Ordinance would be applicable to persons who have attained age of sixty years before promulgation of the Ordinance viz. Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. 1979.

1997 S C M R 494.

---S. 14 [as amended by Sindh Rented Premises (Amendment) Ordinance (XII of 1980)]----Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to examine the nature, extent and scope of S. 14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 as originally enacted and as substituted by Ordinance XII of 1980.

1997 S C M R 494.

---S. 14 [as amended by Sindh Rented Premises (Amendment) Ordinance (XII of 1980)]----Effect of amendment made in S. 14, the Ordinance---Provision of S. 14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 by Sindh Rented Premises (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980---Scope of S. 14 of the Ordinance after amendment has been widened and even those category of persons who other wise in view of old provision could not have invoked S. 14 of the Ordinance were entitled to exercise such right subject to limitation provided by the substituted S. 14 of the Ordinance.

1997 S C M R 494.

---S. 14 [as amended by Sindh Rented Premises (Amendment) Ordinance (XII of 1980)]----Original S. 14 and amended S. 14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 by ---Comparison --- Original S. 14 of the ordinance provided that landlord who was due to attain age of 60 years within the next six months or who had attained the age of 60 years within the next six months or who had attained the age of 60 years could claim ejectment of tenant---Provided that it would not apply in a case where more than six months had elapsed after the retirement or attainment of 60 years by the landlord---As a result of amendment of S. 14, however, any landlord who had attained age of 60 years and after the accrual of right under S.14, has rented out the building, he would be deprived of the remedy provided under S.14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

1997 S C M R 494

---S. 14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Alteration in terms of tenancy---Effect---No new tenancy was created by mere alteration of terms of tenancy---By acceptance of rent every month either under the agreement of tenancy or under the Ordinance, existing tenancy remains in operation and does not make way for new tenancy every month.

Ref. 1997 S C M R 494.

---S.14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Whole deposition of landlord should be read in the light of pleadings of parties---When objection was raised in written statement about the availability of one vacant shop, landlord had explained in his affidavit-in-evidence that he had not rented out adjacent shop lying vacant with him for the reason that he proposed to use both shops to run his business---Land lord when confronted with the publication of advertisement, admitted factum of advertisement be explained that it was inadvertently got published by his cousin without his permission and it was not acted upon as the shop was still with him and had not been rented out---Requirement of land lord was, thus, bona fide and in support thereof, sufficient evidence of satisfactory nature was produced by him---Ejectment of tenant on such ground thus, correct and valid.

Ref. 1995 S C M R 212(b).

---S. 14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the High Court should not have set aside order of dismissal of ejectment application passed by Rent Controller for the reasons that requirement was not bona fide in view of admissions by landlord in his deposition to the effect that one shop (out of two) was lying vacant with him and advertisement was published in newspaper to have that shop rented out.

Ref . 1995 S C M R 212(a) .

---S. 14---Personal bona fide need of landlord ---landlord required shops for running the business of bars and cement ---Three shops were required for storing the material while fourth shop was to be used as an office---Courts below had accepted requirement of landlord---Concurrent finding of fact hat landlord required all the four shops to run his business were recorded by Courts below---No misreading of evidence was pointed out---Ejectment of tenants had been correctly ordered by Courts below.

Ref. 1995 S C M R 201

---S. 14---Constitution of Pakistan((1973), Art. 185 (3)---Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether in view of the fact that landlady was in possession of residential accommodation on the top floor of the same building, could she peress into service aSs14 of the Ordinance to seek eviction o0f tenant for. commercial premises.

Ref. 1994 S C M R 913(a).

---Ss.14 & 15---Application under S. 14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for summary eviction of tenant from a commercial premises on the ground that landlady who was ailing person, had attained the age of 61 years and was living with her crippled son on the top floor of the same building and they both found it inconvenient to reside at the top floor---Landlady also in her application for ejectment after describing her age, illness and physical deformities of her son stated that she need tenement on the ground floor for her personal use and that of her son and both of them would do small business also---Pleadings of the parties showed the controversy whether need of the landlord was bona fide and some evidence was also produced on that aspect of the matter but no issue was framed ad to whether relief could be invoked under S. 15 or not---Held, there was legal impediment in the way of Rent Controller to frame an issue to the effect whether in the circumstances of the case S. 14 or 15 of the Ordinance was attracted---Sections 14 & 15 of the Ordinance though contained two separate causes of action, filing of ejectment application under one would not debar the land lord from seeking relief under the other---Intention of the parties was to contest eviction under Ss. w4 14 &15 together and two Courts below were not right in holding that landlady was entitled to eviction under S.14 without assessing evidence on the question of bona fides or mala fides of the need---Evidence brought on record was not properly assessed and was not adequate to justify order of eviction under S. 14, Supreme Court set aside the findings of the two Courts below and remanded the case to the Court of Rent Controller for adding issue to the effect whether landlady was entitled to eviction under S.15 also and also for deciding the case afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties to produce further evidence if they so desired.

Ref. 1994 S C M R 913 (b).

---S. 14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Landlord, an employee was to retire on 13-11-1986, on attaining age of sixty years---Notice for ejectment of house was to be sent by landlord to tenant on or after 13-5-1986 but said notice was sent to tenant on 14-4-1986 i.e. one month earlier---Courts below by dismissing landlord's ejectment application had acted in consonance with law, thus, no exception could be taken to the judgments of Courts below, which were maintained in circumstances.

Ref. 1993 S C M R 1652 (c)

---S. 14---Constitution of Pakistan 91973), Art. 185(3)---Ejectment of tenant---Petitioner instead of serving notice six months prior to his due date of retirement from service, served notice upon tenant one month earlier i.e. on 14-4-1986---Validity---Leave to appeal was granted to consider, whether ratio of the case of Hasan Askari Rizvi (PLD 1989 SC 1) was applicable or that of the case of Wali Muhammad v. Mst. Hameeda Bai 1983 SCMR 191 and whether Courts below were justified in non-suiting petitioner on the ground of having served notice one month earlier than the requisite date, though admittedly Rent Controller had decided rent case on 31-8-1991.

Ref. 1993 S C M R 1652(a).

---S. 14 (1)---Non-service of notice in accordance with provision of S. 14(1), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Effect---Notice was sent by landlord on 14-4-1986, though he was due to retire on 13-11-1986 i.e. about one month prior to due date which was to fall on or after 13-5-1986---Date when notice in question, was sent by landlord to tenant, landlord did not fall within categories of specified landlords given in S. 14 (1), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Landlord, thus, had no cause of action to send notice in question, on 14-4-1986.

Ref. 1993 S C M R 1652 (b).

---S14.---Bona fide personal requirement by landlord---Landlord's bona fides, although could not be investigated,. yet the real purpose for which eviction was sought did not militate against bona fide personal requirement and same could be allowed to be pressed. requirement and same could be allowed to be pressed.

Ref. 1992 S C M R 1158(d).

---S.14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether in view of admitted position that landlord wanted to demolish the out-houses in order to erect a new construction on the plot of land, and further as the approved plan did not provide out-houses and the area occupied by the tenants' out-houses was proposed to be left vacant whether landlord could seek possession under S.14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

Ref. 1992 S C M R 1158(a).

---S.14---Ejectment application under S.14 of the Ordinance when not maintainable---One of the most important ingredients of S.14 of the Ordinance being that premises from which tenant was sought to be effected should be required for the personal use of the landlord, tenant's ability to show other wise would result in dismissal of such application of ejectment.

Ref. 1992 S C M R 1158(f).

---S.14---Ejectment on ground of reconstruction independent of S.14of Ordinance XVIIOF 1979---Effect---Where ejectment was sought on ground of reconstruction independent of provision of S.14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and according to the approved plan even if such premises were in the open space of new building, same could not be a ground for refusing ejectment for new construction was to made according to the approved plan and so long as the area occupied by the existing and disputed premises was covered by such plan either as a built up area or open space, no such objection could be raised.

Ref. 1992 S C M R 1158(e).

---S14---Landlord's requirement of premises for demolition of building and after reconstruction occupation of same for personal use---Validity---Pleas of reconstruction and personal use were not mutually destructive to each other.

Ref. 1992 S C M R 1158(c).

15. Application to Controller.case law (1) Where a landlord seeks to evict the tenant otherwise than in accordance with section 14, he shall make such application to the Controller.

(2) The Controller shall, make and order direction the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises with in such period as may be specified in the order, if he is satisfied that-

(i) the tenancy has ceased to be valid under section 6;

(ii) the tenant has failed to pay rent in respect of the premises in his possession within fifteen days after the expiry of the period fixed by mutual agreement between the tenant and landlord for payment of the rent, or in the absence of such agreement, within sixty days after the rent has become due for payment;

(iii) the tenant has, without the written consent of the landlord- (a) handed-over the possession of the premises to some other person; (b) used the premises for the purpose other than that for which it was let out; (c) infringed the conditions on which the premises was let out;

(iv) the tenant has committed such acts as are likely to impair the material value or utility of the premises;

(v) the tenant has indulged in such activities as are causing nuisance to the neighbours;

(vi) the premises is required by the landlord for reconstruction or erection of a new building at the site and the landlord has obtained necessary sanction for such reconstruction or erection from the authority competent under any law for the being in force to give such sanction;

(vii) the landlord requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation or use or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children.

(3) Where the landlord who has obtained the possession of the premises for the purpose of reconstruction of the building or erection of a new building, shall demolish the existing building within six months of the taking over of the possession of the premises or, as the case may be, commence the erection of the new building within two years of the taking over of the premises, and in case the landlord fails to demolish the building as aforesaid, the tenant shall be entitled to be put into possession of the premises and for the purpose he may apply to the Controller for an order in that behalf.

CASE LAW

---S.15---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Bona fide personal need of landlord/landlady--- Order of ejectment against tenant of ground of personal requirement of premises by High Court in appeal--- Validity--- Two Courts below having concluded on bases of evidence that landlady was able to prove that she needed one shop for herself for opening boutique and the other shop for her son, such concurrent findings did not suffer from any infirmity as to warrant interference--- Nothing on record supported tenant's assertion that landlady being 62 years of age was not physically fit to run boutique---Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.