2019 YLR 1690 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

MUHAMMAD AAMIR MALIK VS Mrs. AFSHAN ATEEQ Ss. 17(9) & 24---eviction of tenant--- Terms of tenancy agreement that preference was to be given to tenant in case of selling rented premises by the landlord--- Scope--- Additional Rent Controller passed tentative rent order whereby tenant was to deposit future monthly rent but he did not comply with the said order---Appellant/tenant contended that as per terms of the tenancy agreement the landlady/ respondent was bound to first get his consent before selling the rented premises---Validity---Contention of the appellant was entirely misconceived for two reasons; firstly, in such proceedings, the question of sale could not be adjudicated and , secondly, the moment the tenant had admitted to have been put into possession of the premises under a written tenancy he would not have any liberty to subsequently deny relationship of 'landlord' and 'tenant' and consequences arising out of such tenancy unless any subsequent agreement was enforced through course of law---Even otherwise, any such clause as asserted by the appellant, would never prejudice the rights of the owner---Tenant had taken such plea but had not pleaded that respondent had sold or was selling the premises to any body, therefore, such plea was of no legal weight---Appellant was put into possession of the premises under tenancy agreement which also included the clause of mandatory requirement of renewal of tenancy with 10% increase in rent, therefore, even after expiry of rent period the parties would be governed by such agreement ---Record revealed that there had not been any further tenancy agreement, hence even after expiry of agreed period of 11 months, the parties would stand governed by specifically detailed terms (intentions), therefore, Additional Rent Controller had committed no illegality while passing the tentative order--- Said tentative order was confined with reference to future monthly rent with '10% increase" which term even was not disputed by the appellant---Additional Rent Controller had also categorically made it clear that rent deposit (under the tentative order) was subject to final determination, hence no harm was likely to fall upon the appellant in making compliance of such tentative order which otherwise was mandatory in its nature and non-compliance thereof was directly punishable and defence of tenant could be struck off and eviction could follow---Appellant, in the present case, prima facie had failed in making compliance of such order, hence, the subsequent action of Additional Rent Controller was well within the meaning of S.17(9) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.