PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English
← Back to rent laws

2014 YLR 1901 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Sindh · 2014

Full text

MUHAMMAD ESSA GODIL VS Mst. SITARA JAMIL 2000 SCMR 498, 2001 CLC 1743, 2002 SCMR 429, 2003 MLD 480, 2004 SCMR 1342, 2006 SCMR 1068, 2007 CLC 1885, 2010 SCMR 5, 2011 SCMR 320, PLD 1975 Kar. 598, PLD 1981 SC 246, PLD 2001 SC 415, Constitutional petition--TERM , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--15 , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--18 , Ss. 15 & 18---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Scope---eviction petition by the co-owner of the premises---Default in payment of rent---Bona fide personal need of landlady---Payment of Pagri by the tenant---Effect---Contention of tenants was that without permission/consent of other legal heirs of deceased landlord the ejectment petition was incompetent---Ejectment petition was accepted concurrently---Validity---Filing of ejectment case would amount to notice to the tenant---Tenants in the present case, despite change of ownership failed to pay rent to the new landlady and committed willful default---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court was limited in rent cases---Demised premises was required by the landlady for personal accommodation---Demand of landlady for vacating the premises could not be called to be inequitable, unjust or otherwise not being bona fide---Concurrent findings of courts below with regard to personal bona fide need and willful default could not be interfered in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction---Admission made in the pleadings, evidence and/or in the cross-examination need not be proved---Such admission would be deemed to be proved and binding on the parties---Portion of statement/deposition of witness not challenged in the cross-examination would be deemed to have been accepted against whom the same was given---Witnesses of landlady were consistent with regard to default in payment of rent and her personal bona fide need---Such portion of deposition with regard to willful default and bona fide need had gone un-challenged during cross-examination---Person who was entitled to receive rent would become landlord and he could file ejectment petition---Relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties---Default in payment of rent and bona fide need had been proved by the landlady---Tenants had no right to demand title document from the landlady on receipt of notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Tenants were bound to accept new owner as their landlord on receipt of notice---If tenant did not pay rent to the new owner in case of change of ownership then he would be deemed to be defaulter and could be ejected---Findings of both the courts below were in accordance with law and based on evidence---No illegality or infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned judgment/order passed by the courts below---Landlord would also include co-owner and he would also be owner of each and every inch of the property until partition was effected---Co-owner was competent to file rent petition with regard to property jointly owned---Entitlement of landlord to receive rent by such owner could not be questioned after receiving intimation notice by the tenant---Tenants could not deny the ownership of new landlady and their obligation to pay rent to her---Tenants were precluded from denying the title of landlady as "once a tenant always a tenant"---Pagri had no legal sanctity under the law---Tenant could not claim benefit/premium on the basis of Pagri even if same was paid to the previous owner---Pagri was not an advance rent and same could neither be adjusted against the arrears of rent nor it would save the tenant from default in payment of rent---Payment of Pagri did not debar landlord/landlady from instituting rent proceedings on the ground of willful default or bona fide personal need---Tenants were bound to deliver possession of demised premises to the landlady without any objection on their part---Tenants were directed to hand over peaceful possession of demised premises to the landlady within one month---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.