(a) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 16(1)‑‑Tentative rent order‑‑Passing tentative rent order on application of landlord being obligatory on Rent Controller, fact that landlord allegedly had restrained tenant from using rented premises, held, would not warrant Rent Controller to decline landlord's application under S.16 (1) of Ordinance XVII of 1979.
(b) Sind Rented Premises Ordnance (XVII of 1979)--‑
‑‑‑S.16(1)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑ Invocation and exercise of against interlocutory order‑‑Rent Controller dismissed landlady's application under S.16(1) of Ordinance, XVII of 1979 on erroneous view of power‑‑-High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction set aside interlocutory order of Rent Controller with direction to Rent Controller to pass appropriate order.
Mumtaz Hussain Shah for Petitioner.
Sh. Muhammad Usman for Respondent No.2.
JUDGMENT
AJMAL MIAN, J‑‑(a) This petition is directed against the orders, dated 16‑11‑1991 and 22‑3‑1984passed by respondent No.1 in the Rent Case No.6542 of 1490. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner filed the aforesaid rent case for ejectment. The above application was resisted by the present respondent No.2. While the above rent application was pending the petitioner filed an application under section 16 (1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) on or about 14‑4‑1981, on which the passing of an order was postponed by an order, dated 16‑11‑1981. It may be advantageous to reproduce the above order which reads as follows:‑--
"I have heard the learned Advocates for parties. The rate of rent is disputed. The opponent has stated that he was prevented from using the premises by the applicant from 27‑4‑1980. There is no denial of this fact art this stage from the applicant. The applicant claims the arrears of rent from January, 1980 whereas opponent says that he is liable to pay the rent upto 27‑4‑1980. Till the contentions of the parties are investigated, it will not be proper to pass rent order. I, therefore, postpone passing of rent order till the evidence of the parties is recorded. Order accordingly."
(b) The petitioner filed another application on or about 22‑3‑1984 i.e. after the expiry of about 2 years which was dismissed by respondent No.1 by his order, dated 22‑3‑1984 which reads as follows:‑---
"This application is moved for passing rent order. But the record shows that the application under section 16(1) .of Ordinance, 1979 has already been disposed of on 16‑11‑1981. Hence this application is not maintainable and same is dismissed. Announced."
The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.
2. (a) In support of the above petition, Mr. Murtaza Hussain Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, had urged that under subsection (1) of section 16 of the Ordinance respondent No.1 was obliged to pass ‑a tentative rent order.
(b) On .the other hand Mr. Muhammad Usman, learned counsel for respondent No.2, has contended as follows:‑
(i) That the petition suffers from latches and, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ,
(ii) That since the petitioner had restrained respondent No.2 from using the tenement in question, she is not entitled to get any tentative rent order passed.
3. Adverting to the first objection of Mr. Usman, learned counsel for respondent No.2, it may be pointed out that respondent No.1 in his above‑quoted order, dated 16‑11‑1981 had postponed passing of the tentative rent order and, therefore, the petitioner could not have approached this Court for impugning the above order. It may further be noted that, as pointed out hereinabove, the petitioner moved the second application after the expiry of more than 2 years which was dismissed by .the above‑quoted order, dated 21‑3‑1984 on the ground not being maintainable as the previous application stood disposed of. The petitioner has filed the present petition after the passing of above second order. There seems to be no laches on the part of the petitioner.
4. As regards the merits of the case, it may be pertinent to reproduce subsection (1) of section 16 of the Ordinance, which reads as follows:‑---
"16. Arrears of rent.‑‑(1) Where a case for eviction of the tenant has been filed, the Controller shall, on application by the landlord and after such summary inquiry as he deems fit to make determine the arrears of the rent due and order the tenant to deposit the same within such period as the Controller may fix in this behalf and further direct the tenant to deposit monthly rent regularly on or before the tenth of every month, until final disposal .for the case."
5. A plain reading of the above‑quoted subsection (1) indicate that once an application under above subsection (1) of section 16 is made in a case for eviction of a tenant, the Controller is obliged to pass a tentative rent order after such inquiry as he may deem fit to make and is required to determine the arrears of rent dues and is also required to fix the time for depositing the arrears and also to order the deposit of future rent. The factum that the petitioner has allegedly, restrained respondent No.2 from using the tenement in question may give a cause of action to him for claiming damages or to take other appropriate legal action provided for under the relevant law against the petitioner but this fact itself will not be sufficient for the Rent Controller to decline an application under subsection (1) of section 16 of the Ordinance. We, therefore, allow the above petition and direct respondent No.1 to pass an appropriate order under subsection (1) o section 16 of the Ordinance. However, there will be no order as oft costs.
H . B . T .Petition allowed
AJMAL MIAN, J‑‑(a) This petition is directed against the orders, dated 16‑11‑1991 and 22‑3‑1984passed by respondent No.1 in the Rent Case No.6542 of 1490. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner filed the aforesaid rent case for ejectment. The above application was resisted by the present respondent No.2. While the above rent application was pending the petitioner filed an application under section 16 (1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) on or about 14‑4‑1981, on which the passing of an order was postponed by an order, dated 16‑11‑1981. It may be advantageous to reproduce the above order which reads as follows:‑--
"I have heard the learned Advocates for parties. The rate of rent is disputed. The opponent has stated that he was prevented from using the premises by the applicant from 27‑4‑1980. There is no denial of this fact art this stage from the applicant. The applicant claims the arrears of rent from January, 1980 whereas opponent says that he is liable to pay the rent upto 27‑4‑1980. Till the contentions of the parties are investigated, it will not be proper to pass rent order. I, therefore, postpone passing of rent order till the evidence of the parties is recorded. Order accordingly."
(b) The petitioner filed another application on or about 22‑3‑1984 i.e. after the expiry of about 2 years which was dismissed by respondent No.1 by his order, dated 22‑3‑1984 which reads as follows:‑---
"This application is moved for passing rent order. But the record shows that the application under section 16(1) .of Ordinance, 1979 has already been disposed of on 16‑11‑1981. Hence this application is not maintainable and same is dismissed. Announced."
The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.
2. (a) In support of the above petition, Mr. Murtaza Hussain Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, had urged that under subsection (1) of section 16 of the Ordinance respondent No.1 was obliged to pass ‑a tentative rent order.
(b) On .the other hand Mr. Muhammad Usman, learned counsel for respondent No.2, has contended as follows:‑
(i) That the petition suffers from latches and, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ,
(ii) That since the petitioner had restrained respondent No.2 from using the tenement in question, she is not entitled to get any tentative rent order passed.
3. Adverting to the first objection of Mr. Usman, learned counsel for respondent No.2, it may be pointed out that respondent No.1 in his above‑quoted order, dated 16‑11‑1981 had postponed passing of the tentative rent order and, therefore, the petitioner could not have approached this Court for impugning the above order. It may further be noted that, as pointed out hereinabove, the petitioner moved the second application after the expiry of more than 2 years which was dismissed by .the above‑quoted order, dated 21‑3‑1984 on the ground not being maintainable as the previous application stood disposed of. The petitioner has filed the present petition after the passing of above second order. There seems to be no laches on the part of the petitioner.
4. As regards the merits of the case, it may be pertinent to reproduce subsection (1) of section 16 of the Ordinance, which reads as follows:‑---
"16. Arrears of rent.‑‑(1) Where a case for eviction of the tenant has been filed, the Controller shall, on application by the landlord and after such summary inquiry as he deems fit to make determine the arrears of the rent due and order the tenant to deposit the same within such period as the Controller may fix in this behalf and further direct the tenant to deposit monthly rent regularly on or before the tenth of every month, until final disposal .for the case."
5. A plain reading of the above‑quoted subsection (1) indicate that once an application under above subsection (1) of section 16 is made in a case for eviction of a tenant, the Controller is obliged to pass a tentative rent order after such inquiry as he may deem fit to make and is required to determine the arrears of rent dues and is also required to fix the time for depositing the arrears and also to order the deposit of future rent. The factum that the petitioner has allegedly, restrained respondent No.2 from using the tenement in question may give a cause of action to him for claiming damages or to take other appropriate legal action provided for under the relevant law against the petitioner but this fact itself will not be sufficient for the Rent Controller to decline an application under subsection (1) of section 16 of the Ordinance. We, therefore, allow the above petition and direct respondent No.1 to pass an appropriate order under subsection (1) o section 16 of the Ordinance. However, there will be no order as oft costs.
H . B . T .Petition allowed
0 Comments