ASIF ZAHOOR vs MUHAMMAD HANIF Ss — 2025 CLC 1268 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ASIF ZAHOOR VS MUHAMMAD HANIF Ss. 2(j), 17, 17(8), 17(9) & 24 ---Ejectment application---Default in payment of rent and personal bona fide need of the landlord---Tentative rent order passed, non-compliance of---Eviction of tenant ordered---Tenancy relationship, denial of---Tenant, definition of---Scope---Person remaining in possession and paying rent qualifies as tenant, even after expiry of prior tenancy agreement---Respondent (landlord) filed an ejectment application seeking eviction of appellant (tenant) on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide need---Initially, the appellant had entered into a written tenancy agreement with the respondent dated 15.05.2018 and upon its expiry, a new alleged agreement was executed between the respondent (landlord) and the appellant's (tenant's) wife, effective from 10.03.2020 to 10.05.2025---The appellant (tenant's), in defense, claimed he was no longer a tenant and had been wrongly impleaded, as the tenancy had been transferred to his wife---During proceedings before the Additional Rent Controller, a tentative rent order was passed on 22.09.2023---The respondent later filed an application under S. 17(9) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (the "Act, 1963"), alleging non-compliance with the tentative rent order by the appellant---The Additional Rent Controller accepted this application, struck off the appellant's defense, and ordered him to vacate the premises within 30 days vide order dated 11.12.2023---The appellant challenged this eviction in the present appeal, arguing that the tenancy relationship no longer existed between him and the respondent, thus precluding the Additional Rent Controller from passing any order against him---The proposition placed for determination before the High Court was that "where an individual remained in possession of the rented premises and continued to tender rent payments, notwithstanding the expiration of the original tenancy agreement executed in his name and the subsequent execution of a fresh tenancy agreement in favour of his spouse, did such continued occupation and conduct sustain his status as a tenant within the contemplation of section 2(j) of the Act, 1963, and did his failure to comply with a tentative rent order lawfully warranted the striking off of his defence"---Held: As per the definition provided in S. 2(j) of the Act, 1963 a tenant can be a person, who undertakes or is bound to pay rent as consideration for the possession or occupation of a building by him or by any other person on his behalf and it includes any person, who continues to be in possession or occupation of the building after termination of his tenancy and in the event of death of the tenant, his heirs and successors and after termination of the tenancy, his heirs and successors who continue to be in possession or occupation of the building---In the instant case, though a fresh tenancy agreement was executed between the respondent and wife of the appellant but the record revealed that the appellant kept depositing the monthly rent of the rented premises to the respondent even after the execution of fresh tenancy agreement---The appellant was thus a tenant for all intents and purposes---The appellant failed to point out any material irregularity justifying interference with the impugned order---The appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

ASIF ZAHOOR vs MUHAMMAD HANIF Ss — 2025 CLC 1268 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC