Rent controller case laws makan khali karwana default ki bunyad per
Karaya ki raqam date ke ooper pay karna karaya daar ka faraz hai, karaya ki raqam ko security ki raqam se mahi kata ja sakta.
2018 CLC 161
Yaktarfa decree ko khatam Kar ke karaya daar ko case larne ka Haq hasil hona chahye
2018 MLD 162
Question of Title is not relevance in the proceeding before rent controller
2018 YLR 1240
Between parties agreement hoa tha ke koi bhi party rent controller ke pass nahi jai ga, iss ke bawajood munasab karaya maqarar karna rent controller ka ikhtiar hai
2018 SCMR 581
Senior civil judge / rent tribunal khud bhi case ki samaat kar sakta hai. Ya kisi dosre judge ko samaat ke liye bhaj sakta hai.
PLD 2018 LAH 390 (c)
Landlord may not be essentially an owner of the property
2018 MLD 1231 (c)
Renew agreement karte waqat pay ki gai raqam Pagri ki raqam samjhi jai gi.
PLJ 2017 L 797
Even a single day's default in showing compliance with the tentative rent order would entail penal consequences
یہاں تک کہ عارضی کرایہ کے حکم کی تعمیل کرنے
میں ایک دن کی ڈیفالٹ جرمانہ کا سامنا کرے گا
2017 CLC 1242
مالک مکان، بیوی بچوں کے علاوہ اپنی دیگر اہل خانہ کے لیے بھی مکان خالی کروا سکتا ہے.
(2017 MLD 1137)
Malak makan BV bachu ki zaroorat ke liye makan khali karwane ke liye BV bachu ki shahadat ( batoor gwah) karwane ka paband nahi hai
2017 MLD 605
Malak makan BV bachu ke ilawa dosre ghar walo ke liye bhi ghar Khali karwa sakta hai
2017 MLD 1137
Thirty days are required for filing an appeal in terms S-24 of cantonments tent restrictions act 1963
2017 YLR 1622 (b)
New cause of action per new application bedakhali karaya daar file ki ja sakti hai
2017 YLR 1762
Mushtarka malkiat ki soorat main aik malak ki taraf se kiye jane wala agreement dosre karaya daar per qabal e pabndi nahi hai
PLJ 2017 L 797
Application bedakhali ka faisla 4 months ke under karna lazmi hai
2017 MLD 53
Punjab rented premises 2009 section 30 ki khalaf warzi application bedakhali ko mutasr nahi kare gi
2017 MLD 418
During agreement karaya daari sale ka agreement to sell or specific performance ka dawa file honey ke bina per bedakhali ka dawa kharaj nahi hu ga
2016 CLC 1832
Application bedakhali through attorney bhi di ja sakti hai landlord ka khud in person pesh hona zaroori nahi hai
2016 YLR 293
Written agreement karaya daari na honey ke sorat main karaya daari ki mudat sirf aik mah samjhi jai gi. Aik mah defaulter sabat honey ke sorat main baad main time per karaya dena bhi koi faida nahi de ga.
2016 MLD 103
2015 CLC 1187
Rent Agreement written hona lazmi hai.
2016 YLR 405
Rent controller ke darmiany order ke khalaf writ petition maintainable nahi hai
2015 CLC 663(b)
Rent Agreement ya receipt of rent na honey ke sorat main malak makan or Karaya daar ka talaq sabat nahi hu ga.
PLJ 2015 Peshawar 121
Dawa bedakhali main through cross check Rent ki payment pay nahi hu sakti hai
2015 SCMR 642
Rent controller ke yaktarfa order ko mansookh karwane ke mayaad 30 days hai.
2015 CLC 620(b)
Rupees ki value kam honey ke sorat main Pagri ki raqam main azafa karna bhi rent controller ke zimadari hai
Kionke rent bhi azafa hota raha hai.
2015 YLR 1617
Karaya daar Landlord ki death ka knowledge honey ke bawajood rent malak makan ke naam jama karwata raha , aisa karna default ke zumre main aata hai
2015 YLR 1179
Kasdan karaya jama na karwane ke sorat main karaya daar ko bedakhal Kia ja sakta hai
2015 CLC 229
2014 YLR 791
2014 MLD 1113
2014 CLC 929
Rent Agreement ka register hona landlord or karya daar ke talaq ko sabat karne ka behtreen saboot hai
2015 CLC 1546
Karaya daar ya karaya daar ki jaga per zamanat dene wala shakhas bhi karaya daar ke zumre main aai ga
2015 MLD 171
Agar karaya daar har month 5 tarikh tak rent pay na kare tu iss ka haq e dafa khatam kia ja sakta hai
2015 MLD 1342
Kisi dosre shakhas ki jaga per rent recive Karne Wala shakhas bhi landlord ke zumre main aata hai
2015 MLD 171
2015 YLR 1179
2011 MLD 1383
Rent Agreement ka register hona lazmi hai warna fine pay kiye bghair dawa kharaj hu ga
2015 ylr 2045
2013 SCMR 1520
PLD 2013 SC 775
Dawa bedakhali ka faisla karte waqat Pagri ka faisla Karna bhi rent controller ke zimadari hai
2015 YLR 1617
Karaya daar rent agreement khatam kiye bghair sale agreement se faida nahi le sakta hai
2015 YLR 1092
2012 YLR 1464
2012 MLD 108
Ejectment order by rent controller can't be interfer by civil court
2014 SCMR 1210
Landlord ki taraf se karaya na recive Karne ke sorat main karaya court main jama karwaia ja sakta hai
2014 MLD 1084
Cantt ke area main Punjab rent act 2015 apply nahi hu ga
2014 CLC 832
Adaigi karaya ko through receipts sabat na karna bedakhali ki maqool wajah hai.
2014 MLD 1012
Application bedakhali file karne ke baad agar landlord ki death hu jai tu dawa bedakhali maintainable nahi hai
2014 YLR 2598
Karaya daar ko notice dete waqat dawa ki copies with supporting documents send karna lazmi hai
PLD 2014 L 87
Agar karaya daar court orders ke bawajood bhi karaya ada na kare tu karaya daar ka Haq e dafa close karwaia ja sakta hai
2014 CLC 929
Application ejectment ki proceeding ke duran agar property mutalqa sale hu jati hai tu property ka new owner party banana zaroori nahi hai
2013 YLR 1881
Karaya daar ko property main koi Haq sabat karne ke liye pehle property ko Khali karna lazmi hai
2013 YLR 2714
Haqooq e malkiat tabdeel na honey ke sorat main new owner karaya daar ko defaulter qarar na dilwa sakta hai
2013 CLC 414
Defaulter sabat honey ke sorat main iss ke mutalk issue frame karna lazmi nahi hai
2013 CLC 258
Pagri karaya daari ko haddood se Bahar nahi kar sakti hai
2013 SCMR 1520
Dawa ejectment jurmana ki adam adaigi ki sorat main kharaj nahi hu ga jurmana baad main bhi jama karwaia ja sakta hai
2013 SCMR 1520
2013 YLR 473
Rent controller ke final orders ke khalaf appeal hu gi
2013 MLD 371
2007 CLC 1106
Karaya ki raseedain poori na thien karaya daar ne through money order ya through court karaya jama na karwaia tha or property ko naqsan puhnchane ke babat wazia inkar nahi tha.
2015 CLC 1955
Aik co-owner dosre co-owner ki ijazat ke bghair dawa bedakhali file kar sakta hai
2012 YLR 148
2004 SCMR 126
Landlord or karaya daar ka talaq sabat honey ke baad bedakhali ka order Karna lazmi hai
2012 YLR 148
Rent controller ke liye issue frame karna lazmi nahi hai
2012 SCMR 91 (91)
Rent Agreement khatam kiye bghair sale agreement ki koi ahmeat nahi hai
2012 MLD 108
Agar qanoon ke tehat notice na bhaija gia tu yaktarfa karwai na ki ja sakti hai
2011 YLR 2705
Rent ke mamlaat main revision ( nagrani ) na hu sakti hai
PLJ 2011 L 745
Karaya daar rent agreement main extension ka matalba batoor haq nahi maang sakta hai
2011 CLC 755
Landlord ki ijazat ke bghair building main construction karna ejectment ki maqool wajah hai
2010 CLC 819
Notice ki tameel honey ke 10 days ke andar andar leave to defend file na karne ke sorat main karaya daar ka haq e dafa khatam hu Jai ga.
2010 YLR 109
2010 CLC 847
Rent ki adam adaigi ejectment ki maqool wajah hai
2010 CLC 1115
After rent Agreement karaya daar or landlord ke rishta se inkar nahi Kia ja sakta hai
PLD 2010 L 281
PLD 2009 L 429
Kisi building ki ownership change karte waqat karaya daar ko notice dena lazmi na hai
2010 MLD 1988
Without permission of the landlord construction in building is sufficient reason for ejectment
2010 CLC 819
Rent Agreement ki mudat aik saal se ziada honey ke sorat main rent Agreement ko registered karwana lazmi hai
2009 YLR 2294
Specific performance ka dawa decree honey ke bawajood karaya daar ko illegal toor per bedakhal nahi Kia ja sakta hai balke karaya daar new landlord ka karaya daar samjha jai ga.
2009 MLD 286
Karaya daar ki taraf se electricity bill waghaira ko pay na karna default ke zumre main aati hai
2008 CLC 446
2008 PLD k 189
Rent controller ke samaat per CPC apply na hoti hai
Karaya daar ke khalaf application ejectment karne ke liye co-owner ko party banana zaroori nahi hai
2004 CLC 623
Rent controller ke dawa main execution bhi same rent controller ke pass File hu ga
2004 SCJ 547
Rent Agreement ka register hona lazmi nahi hai
PLD 2003 L 204
Village areas main building per West Pakistan urban Rent restrictions ordinance 1959 apply nahi hota hai.
2002 YLR 3993
Rent controller sabqa 3 years ka rent jama karwane ka order de sakta hai
2002 YLR 1353
Landlord ka bian on oath ke us ko building apni bonafide use ke liye chahye hai drusat tasleem hu ga
1997 SCMR 1062
Shahadat record kiye bghair landlord or karaya daar ke rishta ka faisla nahi kia ja sakta hai
1995 CLC 66
Co-owner karaya daar na hu sakta hai
1996 CLC 137
Karaya daar after completion of karaya daari property ko good position main wapis karne ka zimadar hai
PLD 1995 SC 351
 |
| If tenant Default ? |
- Bibi ju ke following case main malik makan bani thi husband ki wafat ke baad
- Bibi bahar ke mulak main rahaish pazeer thi
- Bibi ne rent controller ke pass makan khali karwana ke liye dawa file kia . wJah yeh bian ki karya dar ne sabqa karaya ada na kia hai or 10÷ azafa bhi na kia hai.
- Rebt court ne karaya dar ko tamam sabqa karaya jama 10÷ azafa ke sath jama karwane ke sath sath mojda karya bhi case ke pending ke duran jama karwane ka order kia.
- Karyadar sabqa karaya 10÷ azafe ke sath jama na karwaia
- Rent Court ne makan khali karne ka hukam dia
- Jiss hukam ko high court ne barqarar rakha
- Rent controller ne
High Court Judgement
PESHA WAR HIGH COUR T ABBOTTABAD
BENCH
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
JUDGMENT SHEET
Date of hearing l5'02,2023
Appellant/s (Ishaq Khan) by Mrl Sehrish
H ab i b Dilazok, Advocate.
Respontlent/s (Rubina Asifl by Muhammad
Ayub Awan, Advocate.
FAZAL S
HAN . By way of this single
judgment, this and the following three Regular
First Appeals filed under Section 24 of the
Cantonment
Rent
Restriction
Act,
1963
shall be
decided
jointly,
as
all arises from
the
judgments
and decrees dated 16.02.2022 passed by Rent
Controller in Ejectment Petitions'
(1) RFA No.43-A/2022
Khalid Juved Vs Rubina Asd
(2) RFA No. 44-A/2022
Sheraz Khan Vs Rubina Asd
(3) RFA No.45-A/2022
Muhammad Bilal Vs Rubina Asif
2
2
Relevant facts of the case are that
respondent Rubina Asif widow of Asif Jaa filed
ejectment petitions before leamed Rent
Controller Cantonment, Abbottabad to the effect
she that after the demise of her husband, has
become landlady of the suit premises rented out
by her husband to the petitioners vide agreement
dated 06.05.2006 on the monthly rent @ Rs.
25001-. That she was living abroad and was
unable to handle the affairs of shops personally
and petitioners never deposited the rent with
l0%o annual increase according to agreement. In
the year, 2012 she issued legal notice to the
petitioners demanding increased rent of
Rs. 60001-, however, petitioners instead of
submitting revised rent filed a suit in Civil Court
for deposit of rent and started to submit rent,
whereafter she filed ejectment petition against
them.
That after filing the ejectment petition
the petitioners filed written replies and leamed
J
Rent Controller passed an order for deposit of
43
5
rent with l0% enhanced rate and vide impugned
order, the Rent Controller accepted the petition
ofrespondent and passed ejectment order against
the petitioners.
4
Aggrieved from the said judgement/s
of the leamed Rent Controller, present
petitioners preferred these appeals.
Arguments of learned counsel for
petitioners and learned counsel for respondents
heard and record perused.
6
Record transpires that the respondent
Mst. Robina Asif widow of Asif Jaa filed
ejectment petition against the present petitioners
under Section
17 of
the
of the
Cantonments
Rent
Restrictions
Act,
1963,
from
shop
No. 4, 8, 9
and
shop consisting of service station, on the ground
of default and subletting. After filing these
petitions the leamed Rent Controller, on
16.09.2022, passed an order of deposit of interim
rent under Section 17 (9) of the ibid Act as
"Application for depositing of
rent by the pelilioner is hereby
1
allowed, respondent is directed to
deposit arrears of rent with the
effect from 01.06.2007 to
30.09.2020 with 10% annual
increase as per agreement within
30 days of lhis order. He is
further direcled to keep depositing
monthly renl @ Rs. 11,690 with
this court by 5th of each monlh in
advancett.
The said provision reveals that the
Rent Controller issued specific order directing
not only to deposit arears of rent w.e.f'
Ol .06.2007 to 30.09.2020 but also directed for
deposit of the rent with 10% annual increase as
per
agreement
within
30
days from
the passing
of the
said order.
The
petitioners
were
further
directed to regularly deposit Rs. 11,690 with the
couft/Rent Controller by 5th day of each month in
advance.
8
The order passed by the learned Rent
Controller was in line with Section 17(8) of the
Act of 1963, which is reproduced below for the
sake of convenience.
5
'(17(8) On the Jirst hearing of
proceeding under this section or
as soon thereafter as may be put
before the issues are framed, the
Controller shall direct the tenant
to deposil in his office before a
speciJied date all the rent due
from him, and also so deposit
regularly till the Jinal decision of
the case, before the Sth day of
each month, lhe monthly rent
which subsequenily becomes due,
and if there be any dispute as to
the amount of rent due, the
Controller shall determine such
amount approximately,
Section 17(9) of the ibid Act contains
penal provision for disobedience of order passed
under subsection 8, which read as following.
"(17(9)
If
the tenant
fails
to
deposit
lhe
amount
of rent
before
the specified date or, as the case
may be, before the Sth day of the
month, his application if he is a
petitioneh shall be dismissed, or
his defence, d he is a rcsPondenl,
shall be struck off, antl the
landlords shall be Put in
possession of the building without
6
10.
The said two provisions, in view of the
word "shall" used therein are mandatory 1n
nature and the tenant was required to comply the
said order in letter and spirit for the reason that it
caries a penalty of striking of the defence of the
respondent/tenant in case of non-compliance. In
all the petitions before the leamed Rent
Controller the petitioners failed to deposit the
specific l0%o, over and above, the rent already
fixed. The learned counsel for petitioners during
arguments submitted that Rent Controller has not
conducted
any calculations
to
determine
the
default,
whereas
the appellants
were
regularly
depositing the rent before the civil court. This
arguments of the leamed counsel for petitioners
is not tenable for the reason that the Rent
Controller vide its order dated 16.09.2020 has
issued direction for deposit of arrears of rent as
well as with 10% annual increase, as per rent
agreements, in the said court/Rent Controller, by
5th of each month, in advance. The appellants
have been unable to show that in addition to the
rent they have also paid/deposited 100% annual
increase amount and due to non-compliance of
the specific order of 10% deposited the Rent
Controller right to the conclusion that the order
dated 16.09.2020 was not complied and they
have committed a willful default in respect of the
l0oZ annual increase. The said 1002 increased
amount was to be deposited with the Rent
was .iustified under the law referred to above to
strike down the defence of the appellants and
Mussadaq
Vs, Muhammad
Zafar
lqbal
and
anolher" reported in 2004 SCMR 1453, the
August Supreme Court of Pakistan has held
that:-
uon lhis aspect of the matter, the
legal position is very clear.
According to subsection (9) of
section 17 ofthe Acl, dthe lenant
fails to deposit the amounl ofrent
before speciJied date, o4 as the
8
11.
case may be, before 5th of the
month, his defence shall be stuck
off. On its bare perusal, it is
manifest that he above provisions
are mandatory in natare and even
one day's delay in making the
deposit would be defoult within)
its meaning and Rent Conlroller
has no power to extend time and
condoned the same. To further
fortify, reference can be made to
the case of Misbahullah Khan v.
Mst. Memoona Taskinuddin 1995
SCMR 287 in which this Court
while interpreting the scoPe of
section 17 of the Act, has held
that lentative rent order can be
passed by the Rent Controller
even
d
ground
of default
is
not
alleged
for
seeking
eviction.
'It
is
also
observed
that
noncompliance with the tentative tent
order is directly punishable and in
consequence the defence of
lenanl can be stuck off and
eviction cdn be granted",
In another case titled "Dr. Muhammad
Safdar Vs Mst. Shaista Amjad" reported in 2015
ldLD 1342, it was held that:-
9
t2.
"seeking guidonce tnd deriving
wisdom from the above referred
judgments one can reach to an
irresistible conclusion that once a
defoult is established, the Rent
Controller has no other oPtion
bul to pass an orderfor striking of
the tlefence and Put the landlord
inlo possession of the suit
premises. The leorned Rent
Controller while deciding the rent
petition has not adverted to the
legal aspects of the case, thus, has
committed serious illegalitY'
resulting into miscarriage of
justice.
No illegality or irregularity in the
amount have been pointed out, hence, this
appeals being bereft of any merits stands
dismissed.
Announced
15.02.2023
Date of writing Judgment
t'7 .02.2023
Comments
Post a Comment