Rent paid to old owner after change of ownership. Supreme court case law.
 |
| Case law on tenancy after change of ownership |
ملکیت کی تبدیلی سے کرایہ داری ختم نہیں ہوتی بلکہ نئے مالک کو منتقل ہو جاتی ہے۔ کرایہ دار پر لازم ہے کہ علم ہونے کے بعد کرایہ نئے مالک کو ادا کرے، بصورت دیگر وہ دانستہ نادہندگی کا مرتکب ہوگا۔
پس منظرِ مقدمہ
یہ مقدمہ کرایہ داری میں ملکیت کی تبدیلی کے بعد کرایہ دار کے حقوق و فرائض سے متعلق ایک اہم نظیر ہے۔ درخواست گزار نے 1974 میں سابقہ مالکن کے ساتھ کمرشل کرایہ داری کا معاہدہ کیا تھا۔ بعد ازاں 2016 میں وہ جائیداد رجسٹرڈ سیل ڈیڈ کے ذریعے نئے مالک (جواب دہندہ) نے خرید لی۔ تنازع اس بات پر پیدا ہوا کہ ملکیت کی تبدیلی کے بعد کرایہ کس کو ادا کیا جائے اور آیا نیا مالک کرایہ بڑھانے کا مجاز ہے یا نہیں۔
اہم قانونی سوال
بنیادی سوال یہ تھا کہ جب کرایہ شدہ جائیداد کی ملکیت تبدیل ہو جائے تو کیا کرایہ داری خود بخود نئے مالک کو منتقل ہو جاتی ہے، اور کیا کرایہ دار سابقہ مالک کے نام پر کرایہ جمع کروا کر اپنی ذمہ داری سے بری الذمہ ہو سکتا ہے۔
عدالتِ عظمیٰ کا اصولی مؤقف
سپریم کورٹ نے واضح کیا کہ جائیداد کی فروخت کے بعد نیا مالک قانوناً کرایہ دار کا مالک مکان بن جاتا ہے اور کرایہ داری اپنی تمام شرائط کے ساتھ نئے مالک کو منتقل ہو جاتی ہے۔ سندھ رینٹڈ پریمیسز آرڈیننس 1979 کے سیکشن 18 کے تحت نئے مالک کی ذمہ داری ہے کہ وہ کرایہ دار کو تبدیلیِ ملکیت سے آگاہ کرے تاکہ کرایہ درست فریق کو ادا کیا جا سکے۔
اطلاع اور علم کی حیثیت
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ اگر کرایہ دار کو کسی بھی ذریعے سے، چاہے قانونی نوٹس، سابقہ مالک کے خط، یا عدالتی کارروائی کے ذریعے، تبدیلیِ ملکیت کا علم ہو جائے تو وہ اس بنیاد پر لاعلمی کا بہانہ نہیں کر سکتا۔ ایسی صورت میں سابقہ مالک کے نام پر کرایہ جمع کرانا دانستہ اور بدنیتی پر مبنی ڈیفالٹ شمار ہوگا۔
کرایہ جمع کرانے کا قانونی اثر
سپریم کورٹ نے سابقہ نظیر 1992 SCMR 1170 کا حوالہ دیتے ہوئے قرار دیا کہ تبدیلیِ ملکیت کے علم کے باوجود سابقہ مالک کے نام پر کرایہ جمع کرانا دانستہ نادہندگی ہے۔ مزید یہ کہ نیا مالک اگر بے دخلی یا منصفانہ کرایہ کے لیے درخواست دائر کر دے تو یہی عمل سیکشن 18 کے تحت مؤثر اطلاع تصور ہوگا۔
منصفانہ کرایہ کے تعین کا اصول
عدالت نے سیکشن 8 سندھ رینٹڈ پریمیسز آرڈیننس 1979 کی تشریح کرتے ہوئے واضح کیا کہ منصفانہ کرایہ مقرر کرنے کے لیے تمام چار عوامل کا بیک وقت موجود ہونا ضروری نہیں، بلکہ ایک یا دو عوامل بھی کافی ہو سکتے ہیں۔ تجارتی علاقے میں واقع جائیداد، طویل عرصے سے کرایہ میں اضافہ نہ ہونا، تعمیراتی لاگت، ٹیکسز اور مارکیٹ ریٹ میں نمایاں اضافہ، یہ سب کرایہ بڑھانے کے جواز کے لیے کافی عوامل ہیں۔
عدالتی نتیجہ
سپریم کورٹ نے یہ قرار دیا کہ کرایہ دار کو تبدیلیِ ملکیت کا مکمل علم تھا، اس کے باوجود اس نے سابقہ مالک کے نام پر کرایہ جمع کرایا جو دانستہ ڈیفالٹ کے مترادف ہے۔ منصفانہ کرایہ کے تعین میں نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے درست اور قانون کے مطابق ہیں۔ چونکہ تین عدالتوں کے متفقہ فیصلے موجود تھے اور کوئی قانونی سقم ثابت نہیں ہوا، اس لیے سپریم کورٹ نے مداخلت سے انکار کرتے ہوئے درخواست خارج کر دی۔
قانونی اہمیت
یہ فیصلہ اس اصول کو مضبوط کرتا ہے کہ ملکیت کی تبدیلی سے کرایہ داری ختم نہیں ہوتی بلکہ نئے مالک کو منتقل ہو جاتی ہے۔ کرایہ دار پر لازم ہے کہ علم ہونے کے بعد کرایہ نئے مالک کو ادا کرے، بصورت دیگر وہ دانستہ نادہندگی کا مرتکب ہوگا۔ یہ فیصلہ کرایہ داری کے قوانین میں ملکیت کی تبدیلی کے بعد فریقین کے حقوق و فرائض کو واضح کرنے میں ایک مستند نظیر کی حیثیت رکھتا ہے۔
Must read judgement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi
Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi
Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Civil Petition No.1278-K of 2023
(Against the order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the High Court of Sindh,
Karachi in C.P.No-S-1405 of 2019)
Alay Javed Zaidi Petitioner
Versus
Habibullah & Others Respondent(s)
…
For the Petitioner(s) : In person
For Respondents :
N.R
Date of hearing :
07.02.2024
…
JUDGMENT
Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J.- Through this petition
filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, (“Constitution”) the petitioner has
called in question the order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the High
Court of Sindh, Karachi (“High Court”) whereby constitutional
petition filed by him was dismissed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are
that petitioner entered into a tenancy agreement, in 1974, with one
Mst. Rubina Rahim (“previous landlady”) in respect of the Ground
floor of the building constructed on three commercial Plots No.
943-C, 944-C, and 945-C, (each plot measuring 105 square yards) and
all admeasuring 315 square yards (2835 square feet) situated in
Block-2, PECHS Karachi (“subject tenement”) for the commercial
purpose at the rate of Rs. 3700/- per month. Since then the
petitioner was in the possession of the subject tenement and
carrying on his business. Respondent No.1 (Habibullah) through a
Civil Petition No.1278-K of 2023
-: 2 :-
registered sale deed dated 23.09.2016, executed with previous
landlady, purchased the building constructed on all the three plots
wherein the subject tenement is situated.
3. The claim of the Respondent No.1 is that under his
instructions notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises
Ordinance, 1979 (“SRPO,1979”) was issued to the tenants of the
property where the subject tenement is situated in order to
intimate the change of ownership with the request to pay rent to
Respondent No.1.
4. On perusal of the record it reflects that the petitioner
tendered the rent amount vide pay order No. 10157978 dated
27.12.2016 to previous landlady, which she returned to the
petitioner along with the covering letter dated 31.12.2016 stated
therein that the subject tenement has already been sold to
Respondent No.1 and directed the petitioner to tender the rental
amount of the subject tenement to Respondent No.1. Despite of
acquiring knowledge qua change of the ownership of the subject
tenement in the name of Respondent No.1, the petitioner
intentionally and willfully continued to deposit the rent amount of
the subject tenement in the Court of learned Rent Controller vide
MRC No.39 of 2017.
5. Respondent No.1 filed an application dated 11.04.2017
against the petitioner for fixation of fair rent under Section 8 of
SRPO, 1979 in the Court of learned Vth Rent Controller Karachi
East (“Rent Case No.182 of 2017”) that was duly contested by the
petitioner. The said application was allowed vide judgment dated
12.03.2018 and the learned Rent Controller enhanced the amount
of rent from Rs. 3700/- to Rs. 425,250/- per month at the rate of
Rs. 150 per square feet. (Total 2835 sq.feet multiplied by 150 equal to Rs.
425,250/
Civil Petition No.1278-K of 2023
-: 3 :-
6. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment, both the
petitioner and Respondent No.1 preferred their respective First
Rent Appeals (“First Rent Appeal No.70 of 2018 and First Rent Appeal
No.75 of 2018 respectively”) in the Court of learned District Judge,
Karachi East.
7. Both the appeals were consolidated and decided by the
learned District Judge vide common judgment dated 31.10.2019
thereby the amount of fair rent was modified and reduced from Rs.
425,250/- to Rs. 283,500/- ( at the rate of Rs. 100 per square feet) per
month. The judgment passed by learned District Judge was
challenged by the petitioner before the High Court of Sindh by
filing a constitutional petition (“C.P.No-S-1405 of 2019”) and the same
was dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2023, impugned herein.
8. The petitioner, appearing in-person, contends that the
impugned order of the High Court suffers from illegality and is
perverse in law. Further contends that he had no information
regarding the change of ownership in respect of subject tenement
and the amount of fair rent is unjustified thus the impugned order
is liable to be set aside.
9. We have heard the petitioner and perused the material
available on record.
10. It is apparent from the available record that
Respondent No.1 purchased the building, where the subject
tenement is situated, vide registered sale deed dated 23.09.2016
executed by the previous landlady in favour of Respondent No.1. It
has further brought on record that the petitioner tendered the rent
amount vide pay order No. 10157978 dated 27.12.2016 to previous
landlady, which she returned to the petitioner along with covering
letter dated 31.12.2016 and informed that she has sold the subject
Civil Petition No.1278-K of 2023
-: 4 :-
tenement to Respondent No.1 and directed to tender the rent
amount to Respondent No.1.
11. In case of change of ownership of the rented premises,
the new owner/landlord/landlady is duty bound under Section 18
of the SRPO, 1979 to intimate the tenant (s) about such change so
that tenant(s) may tender the rent to the new owner/landlord. The
record of the case in hand reveals that after change of ownership of
the subject tenement, Respondent No.1 duly complied with the
requirements as contained in Section 18 ibid and served a legal
notice dated 02.11.2016 on the tenants of subject tenement.
12. The petitioner has asserted throughout the
proceedings before lower fora that said notice was not served upon
him. However, it transpires from the record that proper evidence
was adduced at the trial stage wherein it has been admitted by the
petitioner in his cross examination that previous landlady refused
to accept the amount of rent and also informed the petitioner vide
her letter dated 31.12.2016 to send the same to new landlord as
she sold the property to Respondent No.1
13. Despite of acquiring knowledge about the change of
ownership of subject tenement, the petitioner
avoided/neglected/refused to pay the rent to the Respondent No.1
rather he continued to deposit the rent amount in the name of
previous landlady vide MRC No.39 of 2017 in the Court of learned
Vth Rent Controller Karachi East which constitutes a willful
default on the part of petitioner. Reference may be made to the
case of Ghulam Samdani v. Abdul Hameed,1 wherein it has been
held that when tenant(s) after having the knowledge that the
1 1992 SCMR 1170
Civil Petition No.1278-K of 2023
-: 5 :-
subject tenement were sold to another person continued depositing
the rent in favour of previous landlady, such conduct of tenants
amounts to willful default and malafide on the part of tenant(s).
14. It is a settled proposition of law that even institution of
application for eviction would be deemed to be substantial
compliance of the provisions of Section 18 of the SRPO, 1979.
Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Syed Azhar
Imam Rizvi v. Mst. Salma Khatoon,2 wherein it has been held that:-
“The receipt of the copy of the ejectment application and
knowledge gained thereby would constitute due notice and
it will have to be treated as substantial compliance of
section 13-A of the Ordinance.”3
15. In the same vein, the institution of application for fair
rent by Respondent No.1 can be deemed to be a sufficient
intimation to the petitioner regarding change of ownership in
respect of subject tenement. In view of this, petitioner’s contention
that he had no information regarding change of ownership cannot
sustain.
16. Regarding fair rent of subject tenement, Section 8 of
the SRPO, 1979 being relevant, is reproduced as under:-
“8. (1) The Controller shall, on application by the tenant or
landlord determine fair rent of the premises after taking
into consideration the following factors:—
(a) the rent of similar premises situated in the similar
circumstances, in the same or adjoining locality;
(b) the rise in cost of construction and repair charges;
(c) the imposition of new taxes, if any, after commencement
of the tenancy; and
(d) the annual value of the premises, if any, on which
property tax is levied.”
Bare reading of the ibid provision indicates that while determining
the fair rent four factors as stated above must be taken into
consideration.
2 1985 SCMR 24
3 Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is
pari material to section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
Civil Petition No.1278-K of 2023
-: 6 :-
17. It is a settled principle of law that it is not necessary
that all these four factors must co-exist, rather one or two grounds
are sufficient. In the case reported as State Life Insurance
Corporation of Pakistan and another v. Messers British Head and
Footwear Store and others,4 this Court while dealing with the
proposition of fair rent observed as under:-
“In the instant case the appellant out of four factors, as
provided under section 8 of the Ordinance, 1979, according
to record have proved the last three. As to the fourth factor,
as provided in clause (a), we find sufficient evidence
produced by the landlord to prove the rent of similar
premises situated in the similar circumstances, in the same
or adjoining locality which was not accepted by the Courts
below and in our opinion this is the only controversy where
the evidence adduced by the respective parties in terms of
the leave granting order need to be re-examined. At this
juncture we would like to reiterate that by now it has been
settled by this Court that it is not necessary for a landlord
to prove hike in respect of all four factors as detailed in
section 8 of the Ordinance, 1979, or that all four factors
must co-exist in each and every case seeking fixation of fair
rent.”
18. Record of the case further reveals that the subject
tenement is situated in the commercial area of Block-2, PECHS
which is the heart of Tariq Road near Jheel Park and in the vicinity
there are prestigious shopping centers and markets of various
items where the rent is very high. In surreunding buildings to the
subject tenement the rate of rent is high, therefore, in comparison
to the prevailing rate, the rent of subject tenement i-e. Rs. 3700/-
per month appears to be meager, furthermore, these facts have not
been rebutted and denied by the petitioner before the Court of
learned Rent Controller, either in his written statement or in his
evidence. However, petitioner himself has admitted in his cross
examination that the subject tenement is commercial property and
in commercial use.
19. Furthermore, since the date of commencement of
4 2018 SCMR 581
Civil Petition No.1278-K of 2023
-: 7 :-
tenancy (in 1974) for about last 50 years till date there has been a
manifold enhancement in the cost of construction, property taxes,
municipal charges and government taxes. It was the case of
Respondent No.1 before the learned Rent Controller that during
entire tenure of tenancy, since 1974 to 2017 (forty three years), the
prices of the properties and rate of rent of commercial properties in
that area have been increased exorbitantly in as much as the cost
of construction, maintenance, and repairs has increased by
8000%, the taxes by 6000%, the labor charges by 1000% and the
cost of land by 8000%, however, the monthly rent was not
enhanced since 1974. Moreover, it has come on record that the
exchange rate of US $ was equivalent to Rs.9.9 in the year 1974,
thereafter, it increased from time to time and in the year 2017, it
was Rs.105 per US $ whereas the rate of 10 gram of gold in the
year 2017 was Rs. 50,950/-. Hence, the rent of Rs. 3700/- per
month is very meager of the commercial property as compared to
the other commercial premises in same vicinity.
20. In the present case, Respondent No.1 has adduced
sufficient evidence before the trial Court and justified the
enhancement of rent as per the parameters of Section 8.
21. There are concurrent findings by three courts below.
This Court does not normally go beyond the findings of the fora
below unless it can be shown that those are perverse, arbitrary,
fanciful or capricious which, in our candid view, is not the position
in the instant case.
22. The judgments/order passed by the learned Rent
Controller, the appellate Court and the High Court are well
reasoned and based on proper appreciation of all factors, either
factual or legal. Neither any misreading and non-reading nor any
Civil Petition No.1278-K of 2023
-: 8 :-
infirmity or illegality has been noticed on the record which could
make a basis to take a view other than the High Court. The
petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference.
23. Consequently, this petition being devoid of merit is
hereby dismissed. Leave is refused.
Judge
Judge
Judge
Karachi
7th February 2024
Approved for reporting.
Paras Zafar, LC/