Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 785 of 1984, decided on 12th August, 1985.

Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--

---S. 21--Eviction--Appeal issue of default in payment of rent and personal requirement establishment against tenant--Tenant pleading that husband of landlady entered into an agreement to sell demised premises to him for a consideration and a suit for specific performance of contract was pending in Civil Court--Counsel for both parties agreeing to disposal of appeal in terms of consent order to the effect that order of Rent

Controller ejecting tenant would be maintained but ejectment decree would be executed only after final determination of suit and till then tenant would continue to pay monthly rent in Court and in case of default for two consecutive months landlord would be free to execute ejectment decree--Order accordingly.

S.M. Amir Naqvi for Appellant.

Masood Hayat Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing. 12th August, 1985.

This rent appeal under section 22 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by the tenant against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller in a case instituted by the respondent against the appellant on grounds of default and personal requirement.

The admitted position in the case is that the appellant was initially inducted as tenant in premises in dispute on monthly rent of Rs.150 by the respondent, However, when the Rent Application was filed against him, he took the plea that husband of t::- landlady allegedly entered into an agreement of sale with him to sell the property in his occupation for a consideration of Rs.30,00D and accordingly it was contended before the learned Rent Controller that we was not liable to pay any rent to the respondent for the disputed period. In this back ground the Rent Controller alongwith issues of default and personal requirement also framed an issue with regard to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This issue was decided in the affirmative and as there was no denial to the fact that the appellant has not paid any rent since June, 1975, the Controller ordered eviction

of appellant both on the ground of default and personal requirement.[ It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned, Rent Controller should not have passed any order against the appellant' as the appellant had already instituted a Civil Suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale against respondent and her husband in which at one stage a decree was also passed against them. It is however not disputed that the decree passed in the Civil Suit in favour of appellant has since been set aside and the matter is presently pending before the Civil Court. After I heard the learned counsel for the parties in this background at length, they agreed to the disposal of this appeal in terms of the following consent order:

"The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs and the order of the learned Rent Controller is maintained. The ejectment decree passed by the Rent Controller shall however be executed only after final determination of the Suit No. 3157 of 1979 in case the Civil Suit is decided against the appellant. It is further agreed that until decision of the above suit by the Civil Court the appellant/ tenant shall continue to deposit monthly rent in Court as directed by this Court which may be withdrawn by the respondent. In case the appellant commits default in deposit of rent for two consecutive months, the respondent will be free to execute the ejectment decree forthwith.

The learned counsel for the parties jointly request that the Civil Suit was instituted in the year 1979 which is still pending. I have no doubt that as soon as the copy of this order is filed before B the learned Civil Judge who is seized of the matter, he will make

every effort to dispose of the Civil Suit as expeditiously as possible.

M.Y.H.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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