The respondent's eviction petition was accepted and the petitioner was held liable to be evicted as also to pay arrears of rent. It is the case of the petitioner that he was inducted as tenant by the deceased father of the respondent and after demise of deceased father of the respondent, the petitioner continued to pay the rent to mother of the respondent, therefore, he has not committed any default and when relationship of landlord and tenant is denied between the petitioner and the respondent, neither the Trial Court nor this Court can direct the petitioner to deposit the monthly rent as held in "Mian Umar Ikram-ul-Haque v. Dr Shahida Hasnain and another" (2016 SCMR 2186). Held: Induction of the petitioner as tenant in the rented premises was acknowledged albeit under the deceased father of the respondent and therefore, even if this is presumed to be correct, the rented premises has devolved upon the respondent being legal heir, which status of the respondent is neither denied nor disputed by the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner, as a measure of showing his bona fide, has neither approached the Rent Tribunal for deposit of rent to be paid to the lawful landlord/landowner nor has been any interpleader suit filed rather the petitioner has failed to deposit the rent even on the direction of this Court. This indicates the dereliction, with audacity, on part of the petitioner that cannot be countenanced. The demand of the rent by the respondent/landowner not neutralized by conflicting demand by any other legal heir including the mother of the respondent/wife of the deceased father of the respondent (who was the landlord as per contention of the petitioner) obligated the petitioner to make payment of rent to the respondent, keeping in view the settled principle of law that once a tenant is always a tenant.
Writ.79017/23
Sohail Niaz Khan Vs Bilal Rizwan etc.
Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain
06-05-2024
2024 LHC 2437
0 Comments