2016 CLC 1451 ISLAMABAD

Full text

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS FARIDA KHAN 2000 MLD 82, 2004 CLC 862, 2006 SCMR 1068, 2011 SCMR 320, 2013 YLR 1881, 2013 YLR 1898, 2015 CLC 1383, PLD 1991 SC 242, PLD 1999 SC 1101, Eviction of tenant--TERM , Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance 2001--14 , Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance 2001--17 , Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance 2001--18 , Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance 2001--21 , Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance 2001--23 , Objection petition--Term , Ss. 23, 14, 17, 18 & 21---eviction of tenant---eviction order, execution of---Objection petition---Term "as if it was a decree of a civil court" in S.23, Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001---Nature---Plea of agreement to sell---Effect---Tenant got recorded his statement that he would vacate the rented premises within a specified period and would hand over the possession of the same to the landlord and eviction petition was disposed of---Execution proceedings were instituted by the landlord wherein objection petition was moved on the ground that landlord had sold the rented premises through agreement to sell---Objection petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller and warrant of possession was issued---Validity---Term "as if it was a decree of a civil court" in S.23 of the Ordinance was in nature of deeming clause---Rent Controller, in execution proceedings, had to treat every order made under Ss.14, 17, 18 & 21 of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 as a decree of a civil court---Provisions of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 did not obligate the Rent Controller to pass a decree while deciding an eviction petition---Absence of a decree did not make the execution proceedings before the Rent Controller coram non judice or of no legal effect---Landlord would continue to enjoy the status of being the owner of rented premises until and unless applicant was able to establish his claim for specific performance of agreement to sell by a court of competent jurisdiction---Pendency of a civil suit did not give license to the tenant to remain in occupation on the rented premises---Mere pendency of a suit for declaration or specific performance of an agreement to sell was no ground to avoid eviction of tenant who claimed to have purchased the rented premises---eviction proceedings could not be stayed or stalled on the plea that tenant in possession was holding an agreement to sell---eviction order had attained finality and tenant could not get out of it by either asserting that he had become the owner of the rented premises or by asserting that no decree had been passed against him---Tenant was estopped by his conduct to take a contradictory stance to prolong his occupation---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.