Effect of Transfer of Ownership on Tenancy and Binding Nature of Undertaking – 2026 CLC 104.
 |
| 2026 CLC 104 |
کرایہ داری، ملکیت کی منتقلی اور “Once a Tenant, Always a Tenant” کا اصول
تمہید
مقدمے کے حقائق
قانونی نکات پر عدالت کی رائے
عنوانِ ملکیت کو چیلنج کرنے کا حق
دفعہ 19 کے تحت نوٹس کی ضرورت
آئین کے آرٹیکل 199 کے تحت درخواست
حتمی فیصلہ
آئینی درخواست ناقابلِ سماعت ہے۔
Must read judgement.
2026 CLC 104
[Islamabad]
Before Khadim Hussain Soomro, J
MUHAMMAD NAVEED AWAN-Petitioner
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ISLAMABAD (WEST) and others --Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3137 of 2024, decided on 31st July, 2025.
(a) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance (IV of 2001)...
-Ss.17 & 19-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199-Ejectment petition--Change/transfer of ownership-Effect-Subsequent/new owner Instituting ejectment proceedings Relationship of landlord and tenant, denial of Once a tenant, always a tenant-Principle-Mere transfer of ownership does not alter the status of the tenancy nor creates a fresh t fresh tenancy-'Undertaking given by petitioner's (tenant's) counsel to vacate the premises-Significance Consequence of non-compliance stated--The issue in the present case centered on the legality of an eviction order passed against the petitioner (tenant) after a long-standing tenancy-The petitioner had entered into lease agreements with the original landlady, regularly paid rent without default, and even verbally extended tenancy. heyond the written lease period---Later, Respondents Nos. 3 to 3 (new owners) claimed ownership of the premises after a transfer of title and filed an ejectment petition-The petitioner challenged the same, arguing that no mandatory notice of change of ownership under 5.19 of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance 2001) was served; that the relationship of landlord and tenant with Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 (new owners) never legally existed, and that eviction was ordered without proper recording of evidence--The dispute thus revolved around "whether the eviction order was lawful in light of the alleged ownership transfer and absence of statutory notice"?-Held: Admittedly petitioner (tenant) originally entered the demised premises as tenant under the previous landlord Upon the transfer of title, the private respondents (new landlord), being successors-in-interest, stepped into the shoes of the original landlord-Principle "once a tenant, always a tenant," was attracted in the present case and the mere transfer of ownership, did not alter the status of the tenancy nor created a fresh tenancy in favour of the new landlord-Furthermore, it had been the consistent view of the superior courts that a tenant was not entitled to challenge the title of the landlord unless and until he first surrendered possession of the tenanted premises Moreover, petitioner's counsel gave an undertaking before the High Court that demises premises would be handed over to the new owners within four months which undertaking was not complied with---Undertaking recorded by the court carried the force of an order and breach thereof could entail penal consequences, including proceedings for contempt of court---With regards to the requirement of issuing statutory notice under S.19 of the Ordinance 2001, mere filing of the ejectment petition itself constituted sufficient notice to the tenant, therefore, there was no formal requirement to issue notice---Invocation of Art. 199 of the Constitution in the present case was wholly misconceived and not maintainable---Present petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
(b) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance (IV of 2001)
-S.19-Ejectment petition---Transfer/change of ownership---Issuance of intimation notice by new owner---Requirement---Exception stated-Filing of an eviction petition itself constitutes sufficient notice to the tenant of the landlord's intention to terminate the tenancy-The institution of eviction proceedings, by necessary implication, serves as express manifestation of the landlord's desire not to continue the tenancy any further.
Sher Jang v. District Judge Islamabad and 4 others 2004 SCMR 1852 rel.
(c) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance (IV of 2001)...
S.17-Ejectment petition--Undertaking given by tenant's counsel---Significance and scope---Consequences for non-compliance--Undertaking is defined as promise, pledge and engagement-Definition of 'undertaking' is of significant legal consequence as it aligns with the judicial interpretation that such a commitment made before a court is not a mere procedural formality but a binding assurance carrying the force of a court order-Once a party, through counsel, gives an unequivocal undertaking to the court such as to vacate rented premises within a specified period the undertaking transforms into an enforceable obligation-Any breach of such a solemn pledge not only offends the dignity of the court but also has coercive consequences.
Riasat Ali Azad and Muzammil Hussain Shahad for Petitioner.
Ahmed Murtaza Langrial for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5.