2012 SCMR 1931 SUPREME-COURT

Full text

Mst. FAKHRA BEGUM VS Mst. SADIA ASHRAF 1984 CLC 2135, 1986 CLC 380, 1987 CLC 679, 1992 SCMR 1170, 1992 SCMR 46, 1993 MLD 707, 1995 CLC 1000, 1996 CLC 1040, 1997 SCMR 567, 2000 CLC 1813, 2000 SCMR 1960, 2010 SCMR 771, PLD 2004 SC 671, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--13 , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--2 , Ss. 2(i) & 13---eviction of tenant (appellant) sought on grounds of non-payment of water and conservancy charges---Agreement between landlady and tenant for payment of said charges not established---Effect---Rent Controller dismissed eviction application filed by landlady (respondent)---First Appellate Court found itself in agreement with the findings of the Rent Controller---High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below and held that default in payment of water and conservancy charges had been committed by the tenant (appellant)---Contentions of landlady were that tenant had received a bill from the Water and Sewerage Board concerning non-payment of charges, which amounted to a demand for payment of such charges; that tenant had agreed to pay the said charges at the time of inception of the tenancy and signed a rent receipt which contained a printed clause on the reverse vis-a-vis payment of water and conservancy charges---Validity---Tenancy between the parties was a statutory one and up till the filing of the ejectment case there was nothing on record to establish that either the water and conservancy charges were ever demanded from the tenant or for that matter ever paid---Under cross-examination landlady had admitted that rent receipt had not been signed by the tenant and said fact could be confirmed from a bare perusal of the receipt---Landlady also admitted that she was not sure whether there was any written agreement between the parties; whether any notice was served upon the tenant with regard to non-payment of water and other charges etc., and whether she had any receipts whereby said charges were ever paid---Landlady also admitted that bill sent to tenant by Water and Sewerage Board was for the entire building, whereas the tenant only occupied a shop in the building---Evidence available on record made it clear that neither there was any agreement between the parties to pay the water charges nor these charges were ever paid by the tenant, therefore, in the absence of the same eviction of tenant could not be sought by approaching the Rent Controller on the allegation that water and other charges had not been paid---Appeal was allowed and impugned judgment of High Court was set aside.