Find a Lawyer

-- S. 16(2) &13 Landlord, definition of - Eviction proceedings Tenant renting premises from respondent No. 2 (wife of respondent No. 1)-Premises actually belonging to respondent No. 1-Tenant regularly paying rent to respondent No. 2 and on refusal to accept rent by respondent No. 2 moving Rent Controller for deposit of rent and continued depositing rent in that case-Both respondents filing ejectment application on ground of personal use - Rent Controller in ejectment application by both respondents passing tentative order for deposit of rent-Tenant not depositing rent in case by both respondents but continued depositing rent in his rent application with regard to respondent No. 2 alone - Conduct of tenant not proper compliance of order of Rent Controller in case by both respondents-Striking of defence of tenant and ejectment upheld, in circumstances.

S. Z. A. Qureshi for Appellant. M. M. Ptraada for Respondent No. 1. Date of bearing : 29th August, 1982.

The appellant has filed this appeal from the order of 10th Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi dated 19th February, 1981 whereby he had struck off the defence of the appellant and directed him to vacate the premises in question and hand over its possession to the respon dents/landlords within 90 days.

2. The appellant had taken on rent House No. 6/T/6, P. E. C. H. S. Karachi from respondent No. 2, who is wife of respondent No. 1. The house actually belongs to respondent No. 1. The rate of rent was Rs. 600 per month. The respondents filed ejectment application before the Rent Controller on the ground that the appellant was defaulter and that the premises were required by the respondents for their personal use.

3. The plea of the appellant was that be had been paying rent to respondent No. 2 up to the February, 1976. Thereafter, he refused to accept the rent, hence he made application to the Rent Controller for deposit of rent. This application was Miscellaneous R. A. No. '953/76. It is his case that he had been depositing rent regularly in the above rent application in which only respondent No. 2 was party.

4. On 20th September, 1978 the learned Rent Controller passed a tentative order in the present ejectment application filed by the two respon dents, directing the appellant to deposit rent for the month of September, 1978 onwards at the rate of the Rs. 600 before 15th of every month. In spite of this order, the appellant did not deposit rent in the ejectment case, but continued depositing rent in the above Miscellaneous Application No. 953/78 in which only respondent No. 2 was party and not respondent No. 1 who was real owner of the property. On the application of the respondents the learned Rent Controller passed the impugned order. declaring the appellant to be defaulter and consequently liable to ejectment under section 16 (2) of the Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that he cannot be called defaulter because he had been depositing rent in the M. R. A. No. 953/76. The plea has no substance at all. M. R. A. No. 957/76 was filed against the respondent No. 2 only. The ejectment case was filed by the two respondents who include the real owner of the pro perty. According to Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the definition of the landlord is different from that provided for in the earlier Ordinance of 1959. AS the case was decided by the learned Rent Controller in 1981, hence he had to follow the procedure laid down by the Ordinance of 1979, according to which landlord has been defined "owner of the premises including person who is for the time being authorised or entitled to receive rent in respect of such premises." After the promulgation of this Ordinance, the husband of the respondent No. 2 shall be the real landlord although the respondent No. 2 shall also be deemed to be a landlord by sufferance. In view of this legal position, the insistence of the appellant in depositing rent in a separate rent case filed against respondent No. 2 alone, cannot be said to be proper compliance of the tentative order of the Rent Controller referred to above. The learned Rent Controller was, therefore, justified in striking off the defence of the appellant. This appeal has no substance and is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost. The appellant is however given two months time to vacate the premises and hand over its possession to the respondents.

M,Z,M. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.