Tenant rights when landlord sells property. Aik dafa ka karayadar hamesha ka karayadar kabhi malik nahi ban sakta jhoote documents se.

Tenant meaning in english ?

A tenant is an individual or entity that rents or occupies property, such as a house, apartment, or commercial space, from a landlord or property owner. In exchange for the right to use the property, the tenant usually pays rent to the landlord. The terms and conditions of the rental agreement are typically outlined in a lease or rental contract.

Tenant meaning in Urdu ?

کرایہ دار ایک فرد یا ادارہ ہے جو مالک مکان یا جائیداد کے مالک سے جائیداد، جیسے مکان، اپارٹمنٹ، یا تجارتی جگہ کرایہ پر لیتا ہے یا اس پر قبضہ کرتا ہے۔ جائیداد کے استعمال کے حق کے بدلے میں، کرایہ دار عموماً مالک مکان کو کرایہ ادا کرتا ہے۔ کرایے کے معاہدے کی شرائط و ضوابط عام طور پر لیز یا کرایے کے معاہدے میں بیان کیے جاتے ہیں۔

Case Laws Tenant and Landlord

JUDGMENT SHEET

LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No.

22949 of 2016

Mian Bilal v. Muhammad Razzaq, etc.

J U D G M E N T

Date of Hearing:

08.05.2023

Petitioner by:

Raja Abdul Rehman, Advocate.

Respondent No.1 by: Ch. Hamid Mahmood, Advocate.

Anwaar Hussain, J. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the

petitioner filed an ejectment petition against respondent No.1 („the

respondent‟), in respect of House No.140, Street No.50, bearing property

No.SEXVI-50-S-140, measuring 5-Marlas („the rented premises‟), with

the assertions that on 03.01.1995, the petitioner executed an agreement

(„the agreement‟) in favour of the respondent, regarding the sale-cumtenancy of the rented premises against total consideration of Rs.325,000/-

and out of the said amount, Rs.100,000/- was received by the petitioner as

earnest money, and it was further agreed that the remaining amount was to

be paid by the respondent on 30.03.1995 upon which the rented premises

was to be transferred in the name of the respondent; and in case of failure

on part of the respondent to clear the balance payment, the respondent

agreed and undertook to pay a sum of Rs.100,000/- as penalty. The pivotal

and not-so-traditional clause resulting in the present lis was also agreed

inter se the parties that till the performance of reciprocal contractual

obligations spelled out above i.e., on or before 30.03.1995, the respondent

was to be treated as tenant @ monthly rent of Rs.600/-. It is the case of the

petitioner that the respondent failed to pay the balance amount of

Rs.225,000/-, within stipulated period of time and instituted a suit for

specific performance against the petitioner, which stood dismissed on

account of non-affixation of the Court fee and by use of force, the

W.P. No.22949 of 2016

respondent, in respect of the rented premises, obtained signatures of the

petitioner on blank papers and maneuvered registration of a general power

of attorney („the GPA‟) with respect to the rented premises, in favour of

one Muhammad Ilyas son of Muhammad Yaqoob who is totally an alien

person to the petitioner. Complaint about the incident was statedly

registered by the petitioner. It was further asserted that having come to

know about the registration of the GPA, the petitioner procured cancellation

thereof on 13.07.1998 and since the respondent was illegally retaining the

rented premises without payment of rent; the petitioner, on 23.09.1999,

filed ejectment petition. The respondent contested the application by filing

the reply and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and claimed

ownership of the rented premises on the strength of the agreement qua the

sale-part thereof. The ejectment petition was dismissed, vide order dated

01.06.2009 against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner that also

met the same fate, vide order dated 03.05.2016, hence, the present

constitutional petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Courts

below have failed to appreciate that when the ownership of the petitioner

was admitted by the respondent who had not been able to prove the

payment of entire sale price in accordance with the agreement, in such

situation the respondent was required to prove his title, which the

respondent miserably failed to do as his right of evidence was closed and he

ought to have been regarded as a tenant, under the agreement and therefore,

decision of the learned Rent Controller upheld by the learned Appellate

Court below is based on mere assumptions and conjectures.

Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the

impugned findings with the averments that the original documents of the

rented premises were produced by the respondent, which were handed over

to him by the petitioner, after receipt of the balance sale price albeit after

the due date agreed under the agreement, and this fact alone establishes that

W.P. No.22949 of 2016

the petitioner sold the rented premises and there is no relationship of

landlord and tenant between the parties.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

The factual matrix of the case leads to the formulation of following

questions that are required to be adjudicated upon by this Court:

i. Whether the rent clause contained in the agreement is an

independent and stand-alone contract, severable from the rest

of the agreement, and the same could be considered to have

survived after failure on part of the respondent to fulfil the

condition of payment of balance sale price, before the cut-off

date i.e., 30.03.1995?

ii. Whether the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Courts

below, under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction

Ordinance, 1959 (“the Ordinance”), could have been

extended in aid of a person/tenant in occupation of the rented

premises by permitting him to establish and prove the payment

of outstanding sale price pursuant to the agreement (of sale)

even though the suit for specific performance, instituted by

such person/tenant, on the basis of the agreement had been

dismissed by the competent Court?

Before answering the above referred questions, it will be

advantageous to examine the contents of the agreement that read as

hereunder:

" ا قار نہم

نم ہک ایمں البل ودل ملع دنی اسنک اکمن ربمن 041یلگ ربمن 51اجمدہآن دالوہر ققیاول

دمحم رزاق ودل دمحم انیم اکمن ربمن4یلگ ربمن04 قیدوم

ایمںریمالو

W.P. No.22949 of 2016

that the parties agreed to the extension in cut-off due date. A meticulous

examination of the agreement reveals that the agreement is unique in

nature. It has three significant parts. First part of the agreement indicates

that the parties had agreed to sell the rented premises for total consideration

of Rs.325,000/- out of which an amount of Rs. 100,000/- was paid as

earnest money by the respondent to the petitioner and the balance amount

was to be paid by or before stipulated date i.e., 30.03.1995. Admittedly, the

needful was not done by the respondent and the payment was not made on

or before 30.03.1995. Whereas second part of the agreement is the effect of

such breach, which contemplates that in case of failure on part of the

respondent to pay the balance amount of the consideration, the earnest

amount will be confiscated and that the transaction (of sale) shall be

deemed to have been rescinded. Third part is the stipulation that till

30.03.1995, the respondent will pay rent to the petitioner. Meaning thereby

that till the cut-off date that had been fixed for payment of the balance

consideration, the nature of relationship between the parties was that of the

landlord and the tenant and the moment the said due date expired and the

respondent admittedly failed to pay the balance consideration, the

agreement envisaging sale, between the parties, automatically stood

rescinded and the respondent continued to hold the possession as tenant

albeit, under an oral tenancy, on the basis of doctrine of holding over. It is

pertinent to observe that no overt or covert was required on part of the

petitioner to get sale-part of the agreement rescinded or cancelled. At this

juncture, it is imperative to mention that the ejectment petition was filed

under the Ordinance (since repealed), which did not envisage expiry of term

of tenancy as a ground of eviction and the petitioner was obligated to prove

default or any other ground of ejectment envisaged under the Ordinance.

Therefore, the ejectment petition was rightly filed on ground of default in

payment of rent. The respondent had taken the stance that in-fact he paid

the balance consideration after the expiry of the stipulated date i.e.,

30.03.1995 as the said date was extended with mutual consent of the parties

W.P. No.22949 of 2016

and the petitioner received the amount and acknowledgment thereof was

recorded on the reverse/back side of the agreement, therefore, there was no

need to pay the rent and the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned

Appellate Court below accepted the said stance. The learned Appellate

Court below held as under:

“12. It was emphatically argued that the respondent had

failed to perform his part of the agreement therefore, he was

not entitled to retain the possession of the demised premises

being defaulter in payment of rent as he admitted the

relationship of landlord and tenant in written reply and even

before Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore and that an

agreement to sell does not create an estoppel against the

right of the landlord. This argument would have of much

weight and substance if there had been any independent

rent agreement between the parties but the appellant has

derived his alleged claim of landlord on the basis of sale

agreement Ex-R-1 which otherwise was an alternate

arrangement made by the parties in execution of the

agreement just to claim the tenancy rent amount for that

specific period of two months by which respondent was put

into possession in the demised property under the agreement

to sell. I have also gone through the alleged admissions

pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant but could

not sway myself to accede to this argument because

respondent though admitted the execution of agreement yet

he explained there that alleged tenancy had terminated after

the payment of sale consideration and with this explanation,

alleged admissions have become insignificant for proving

the case of appellant. Therefore, argument of the learned

counsel for the appellant has not been substantiated by the

record.

(Emphasis supplied)

The learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Court below

erred in interpretation of the agreement between the parties that comprises

of two different transactions. This Court is of the opinion that the rent

clause contained in the agreement is an independent and stand-alone

contract severable from the rest of the agreement and the same survived

after failure on part of the respondent to fulfil the condition of payment of

W.P. No.22949 of 2016

balance sale price, before the cut-off date i.e., 30.03.1995. The contracts

have their own canons and principles for their construction. Principle of

severance/severability of a contract is well-entrenched under the law of

contract. The doctrine implies that there are contracts within a contract in

the form of particular clause, which survive the frustration and/or the

determination/rescission of the main contract. This principle is also known

as principle of separability and is well established. In this regard, case

reported as “Hitachi Limited and another vs Rupali Polyester and others.”

(1998 SCMR 1618) is referred.

Perusal of the agreement reproduced above reveals that the

agreement was couched by the parties in a manner that the same could be

severed into two independent and separate agreements one of which

pertained to sale of the rented premises that specifically contains that the

possession shall be handed over at the time of mutation of the rented

premises by stipulating that “۔"اجاگیئ دکنا یلقتنم بروز ہضبق. This is followed by the clause

whereby it had been agreed that the possession of the rented premises is

being handed over to the respondent on rent, which shall be paid till the

completion of the remainder of the contract that is in the nature of

agreement to sell. The remainder of the contract could not be performed for

rhymes and reasons that would be unnecessary to dilate upon in the present

proceedings. However, the ineluctable position is that the suit of the

respondent for specific performance failed. The possession under the

agreement, as per contractual stipulations, was to be handed over on the

date and day of mutation which never took place. Time was certainly

essence of the contract and admittedly payment of balance sale price was

not made by the respondent on or before the cut-off date. Since the

respondent failed to meet the cut-off date, as a natural corollary, he

continued to hold the possession of the rented premises, under the terms of

the agreement, which though forms second part of the agreement but, in

essence, is an autonomous and separable agreement creating oral tenancy,

under the Ordinance. Therefore, it was not appropriate for the learned Rent

W.P. No.22949 of 2016

Controller to cherry-pick parts of the contract and overlook the others. The

respondent took over the possession of the rented premises as a tenant,

under the agreement, and cannot take volte-face from the stipulations of the

agreement in this regard including automatic rescission of the agreement, to

the extent of sale, upon failure on part of the respondent to meet the cut-off

date.

It is also imperative to note that the respondent instituted a suit for

specific performance of the agreement, which was dismissed but the

dismissal was not assailed before the appellate forum, hence, the said order

attained finality. Perusal of the order of dismissal of the suit (Ex.A-2)

reveals that the suit of the respondent was dismissed on 03.05.1995 and the

contents of the reverse/back side of agreement has been taken as an

extension in time for performance of the agreement, by the learned Courts

below to draw the conclusion that the petitioner himself extended the date

of performance of the agreement after receipt of Rs. 100,000/- on

05.04.1995 and then received the balance sale consideration of Rs.125,000/-

on 02.05.1995 and these dates of payment manifestly establish the amicable

resolution of dispute, so there was no reason for the respondent to challenge

the order of dismissal of his suit for specific performance of contract. The

conclusion is erroneous inasmuch as while exercising jurisdiction under

rent law, the learned fora below extended an opportunity to the respondent

to establish and prove the outstanding payment of sale consideration

pursuant to the agreement that is not covered under the object of the

Ordinance, more so when the suit for specific performance on the basis of

the agreement had been dismissed by the competent Court. The learned

Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Court below appear to have

been impressed by the endorsements on the reverse/back side of the

agreement, which by itself cannot be a circumstance that establishes the

receipt of any money, more particularly, when the said endorsements have

not been recorded in accordance with the dictates of Qanun-e-Shahadat

Order, 1984 („QSO‟). No doubt that the learned Rent Controller was

W.P. No.22949 of 2016

entitled to hold an inquiry into question of title in case of eviction, however,

when the matter involved a complexity such as the one in hand, requiring

interpretation of the agreement having dual characteristics involving issue

related to specific performance thereof, unless the same is proved in

accordance with Article 17 read with 79 of the QSO, before the Court of

plenary jurisdiction, the respondent could not deny the relationship of

landlord and tenant. Learned Rent Controller has erroneously allowed the

respondent to take benefit of the purported endorsements/

acknowledgements recorded on the reverse/back side of the agreement. At

this juncture, before analysing whether the reasons recorded by the learned

Courts below in general and that of the learned Appellate Court below in

particular are cogent and sustainable in the eye of law, it will be

advantageous to reproduce the two endorsements/acknowledgments, of

payment, recorded on the reverse/back side of the agreement that reads as

under:

ی وتعیسرکدی 95 - 4- 00 ''آجغلبمای ک الھکروہیپ یک ووصلرکےکآخ یاقبنکادایگیئےکےئل

ےھ۔ 95 - 4- 5

وگاہ دش

ایمں البل ودل ملع دنی ذموکر

اقبنکرمقغلبمای ک الھکسیچپہ ارروہیپازاںدمحمرزاقرتشمیووصلرکےکاسرطحامتمرمقووصلرکیل

ےھ۔ھچکاقبنکہنےھ۔ 95 - 5- 5

ایمں البل

ID 337-41-245574 "

Both the learned Courts below have erred in drawing the conclusion that the

tenancy between the parties expired since the balance sale consideration

had been paid after the due date, with mutual consent inasmuch as the

above quoted endorsements/acknowledgments do not refer the name of any

witnesses in whose presence the purported balance sale consideration was

paid and the same have been taken as a gospel truth. Whereas there is no

W.P. No.22949 of 2016

denial that at the outset of his induction in the rented premises, the

respondent was a tenant and it is settled principle of law that once a tenant

is always a tenant. The status of the respondent as a tenant was to continue

as such till the transformation of the same into an owner, had the sale-part

of the agreement been completed and executed in letter and spirit, which

was admittedly not taken to its logical conclusion or proved in accordance

with law before a Court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, the learned

Rent Controller had no power to draw such conclusion. Moreover, even if it

is assumed that learned Rent Controller had power to conduct the inquiry

allowing the respondent to prove the payment of balance price, which the

learned Rent Controller had not, question arises who were the witnesses of

such endorsements/ acknowledgments reflecting payment beyond cut-off

date as no such witnesses were produced. Hence, it can easily be inferred

that the respondent, having admitted ownership of the petitioner as well as

initial tenancy failed to prove the payment of balance sale price as agreed

and the status of the respondent never underwent any transformation and

remained as a tenant. Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for

the respondent that mere presence of the original title documents of the

rented premises in custody of the respondent in itself substantiates the

stance of the respondent that he cleared full payment under the agreement

and received the said documents. The said argument too is misconceived as

presence of the title documents does not get traction from anything in

writing, either in the agreement or even through the endorsements/

acknowledgments at the reverse/back side thereof or through any other

independent instrument that the original documents were lawfully obtained

by the respondent, pursuant to completion of the sale under the agreement,

whereas it has not been denied by the respondent that the GPA stood

cancelled and criminal complaint was also filed against the respondent for

committing forgery and use of force against the petitioner. Suffice to

observe that the purpose and object of the Ordinance, which is erstwhile

legislation governing relationship of landlord and tenant, was to

W.P. No.22949 of 2016

provide machinery for ejectment of tenants and other ancillary matters and

the learned Rent Controller functioning thereunder had no authority to hold

that a tenancy agreement coupled with stipulation of sale was specifically

performed and the respondent is to be treated as a buyer simply because of

the presence of original title document of the rented premises with the

respondent and by doing so the learned Rent Controller erroneously

assumed jurisdiction of a Civil Court, passing a decree of specific

performance by concluding that the agreement stood specifically performed

between the parties, more so when there is no supporting evidence on

record.

10. In view of the above, this constitutional petition is allowed and the

impugned findings of the learned Courts below are set aside. As a natural

corollary, the eviction petition filed by the petitioner is accepted and the

respondent is liable to forthwith eviction from the rented premises.

(ANWAAR HUSSAIN)

JUDGE

Approved for reporting

Judge

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.