2016 CLCN 109 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

AYUB LAMBAT VS VALIKA PROPERTIES (PVT.) LTD. Constitutional petition--TERM , Ejectment of tenant--Term , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--15 , S. 15---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Ejectment of tenant---Oral rent agreement---Default in payment of electricity bill---Effect---Ejectment application was accepted on the ground of default in payment of electricity bill and infringement of conditions of tenancy---Validity---Demised premises was rented out to the tenant in the year 1953-54 without execution of written tenancy agreement---Tenant had been paying rent regularly to the landlord---No detail of violations of terms and conditions of tenancy had been mentioned in the ejectment application---No written tenancy agreement was executed between the parties---Separate electric meter was installed in the name of tenant and he had been paying electric charges himself directly---Tenant had to pay electricity dues directly as per agreed condition of tenancy---Payment of electricity bill was a matter between the tenant and Electric Supply Company---Landlord had failed to mention the specific period of default in payment of electricity bill in the ejectment application---Allegations of default in payment of electricity bill could not be proved in the evidence of landlord---Wrong and excess bill of electricity was issued whereby an amount of Rs.1,27,384.53/- was shown as outstanding bill---Wrong bill of electricity was corrected and tenant had paid the outstanding dues---Neither disconnection notice was ever issued, nor electric meter was disconnected for want of outstanding dues---Tenant had not committed default in payment of rent---No legal substance existed for filing rent application on the ground of default in payment of electricity bill---Landlord was bound to narrate all the relevant and necessary details of his claim by elaborating and focusing upon each and every feature of such claim---Incomplete claim could not be improved and advanced through evidence and such improvement would be fatal to his/her imperfect claim---Neither the landlord, nor the tenant could approach the Rent Controller for the alleged violation of terms and conditions of an oral agreement nor they could emphasize for implementation of any such condition based on the oral agreement---Landlord could not knock the door of court on the pretext of any violation of the agreed terms and conditions with regard to oral tenancy---Concurrent findings of both the courts below were outcome of non-reading and mis-reading of evidence adduced by the parties---Both the courts below had failed to appreciate the relevant facts and ground while passing the impugned judgments---Concurrent findings, recorded by the courts below, were set aside and eviction application was dismissed in circumstances