MUHAMMAD AYUB, SHOP MANAGER BATA PAK. LTD vs MUHAMMAD RAHMAN — 2026 SCMR 31 SUPREME-COURT

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

MUHAMMAD AYUB, SHOP MANAGER BATA PAK. LTD VS MUHAMMAD RAHMAN. S. 13(2)(i)---Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g)---Landlord seeking ejectment of tenant and recovery of arrears of rent---Claim of arrears filed by landlord after four years without any credible evidence---Burden on landlord to prove claim of rent. The respondent/landlord filed an ejectment application before the Rent Controller against the petitioners/tenants seeking possession of the shop in question along with recovery of rent from 2016 onwards. The respondent/landlord claimed that the tenancy agreement had expired in 2016, yet the petitioners retained possession after locking the premises. The petitioners submitted a reply asserting that they had already handed over vacant possession and paid all dues, but they did not contest further and were proceeded against ex-parte. The Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application but rejected the claim of rent arrears, which finding was affirmed by the appellate authority. However, the High Court set aside the concurrent findings and granted ejectment along with recovery of rent from January 2016 to January 2024, which led to the present proceedings before the Supreme Court. Held: Both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority concurrently found that the respondent/landlord failed to discharge the burden of proving rent arrears or continued possession of the premises by the petitioners after 2016. Such findings were based upon appreciation of evidence, or absence thereof, and did not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error. No witness was produced by the landlord to support the claim that the petitioners/tenants continued to occupy the premises after 2016. The person named "S", in whose purported assurance the respondent/landlord allegedly refrained from taking possession, was neither impleaded as a party nor summoned as a witness, therefore, such omission constituted withholding of the best available evidence attracting the principle contained in Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Furthermore, the statutory regime under Section 13(2)(i) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 prescribed a period of sixty days for initiating proceedings in cases of non-payment of rent, in the absence of a fixed timeline in the tenancy agreement. In the present case, the tenancy agreement expired in 2016 and the ejectment application was filed in 2020. No explanation was offered for this extraordinary delay, nor was there any plea of acknowledgment or revival of tenancy during the intervening period. The unexplained lapse of nearly four years was fatal to the claim both on the grounds of limitation and laches. The finding of the High Court that the respondent/landlord was entitled to rent for eight years, in the absence of proof of possession or continuation of tenancy, disregarded fundamental principles of evidence. The landlord, having admitted that the shop remained locked and having produced no cogent evidence to establish that the tenants used or benefited from the premises during that period, could not be awarded rent merely because the tenants failed to actively contest the proceedings. Impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD AYUB, SHOP MANAGER BATA PAK. LTD vs MUHAMMAD RAHMAN — 2026 SCMR 31 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR