Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.133 of 1985, heard on 20th October, 1985.

‑‑‑S.13‑‑Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.53‑A‑‑Ejectment‑ Default in payment of rent‑‑Tenant denying relationship of landlord and tenant and not paying rent to landlord on ground that since there was an agreement of sale in his favour his possession was protected‑‑Rent Controller deciding issue of relationship of landlord and tenant in favour of landlord and ejecting tenant without holding further inquiry regarding non‑payment of rent‑‑Order of Rent Controller maintained‑‑Till such time agreement in question was specifically enforced in favour of tenant by a competent Court, tenant, held, was bound to pay rent as he occupied premises as a tenant and law no protection under S.53‑A, Transfer of Property Act, was available to him and exemption in payment of rent claimed by tenant was, therefore, misconceived.

Haji Jan Muhammad v. Ghulam Ghaus and others 1976 S C M R 141; Khusro Alam Hydri v. Mst. Iqbal Begum 1981 C L C 347 and Allah Yar etc. v. Additional District Judge etc. 1984 S C M R 741 ref.

Mushtaq Masood for Petitioner.

Sana Ullah Bajwa for Respondents Nos.3 and 4. .

Date of hearing: 20th October, 1985.

The shop in dispute originally belonged to Ubaid Ullah respondent. On 3‑8‑1982 he sold it away to respondent No.3. She instituted an ejectment petition against the petitioner inter alia on the ground of default. The petitioner contested the ejectment petition and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. This denial was founded on the plea that Ubaid Ullah entered into agreement, dated 11‑6‑1982, for the sale of the shop, in petitioner's favour and thus, the alienation of the shop to respondent No.3 was in violation of the agreement. The learned Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant and decided the same in favour of the respondent. As the non‑payment of the rent was not in dispute, he without holding further enquiry, by .his order, dated 29‑11‑1984 evicted the petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge declined to intervene in appeal. The order dismissing the petitioner's appeal is dated 23‑1‑1985. He has now come to this Court for removal of the orders aforesaid through judicial review.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. On behalf of the petitioner it is argued that since there was an agreement for sale, the relationship of landlord and tenant did not come into existence between him and respondent No.3. In the submission of the learned counsel, the petitioner was entitled to have his possession protected under section 53‑A of the Transfer of Property Act.

3. There is no merit in these submissions. The petitioner was bound to pay the rent till such time, the agreement in question, was specifically enforced in his favour by a competent Court. Admittedly he occupied the property as a tenant under Ubaid Ullah. When there was a sale in the name of respondent No.3 the right to recover the rent from the petitioner, stood transmitted to the vendee. In law, no protection under section 53‑A ibid was available to the petitioner. Reference in this connection may be made to Haji Jan Muhammad v. Ghulam Ghaus and others 1976 S C M R 141, Khusro Alam Hydri v. Mst. Iqbal Begum 1981 C L C 347 and Allah Yar etc. v. Additional District Judge etc. 1984 S C M R 741. In view of the case law on the subject, the exemption from payment of rent claimed by the petitioner was misconceived. The Tribunals below rightly answered the preliminary issue in favour of the respondent‑vendee and ordered the petitioner's eviction. There is no illegality muchless a jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders. This writ petition having been found without merit is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

M . Y . H . Petition 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.