Supreme Court Upholds Landlord’s Right to Evict Despite Delay in Tenancy Registration.
 |
2026 scmr 171مالک مکان کی بے دخلی کی درخواست: رجسٹریشن نہ ہونے پر سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ |
مقدمے کا پس منظر
قانونی نکات
سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ
منفرد نکات
Must read judgment
2026 SCMR 171
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Yahya Afridi, CJ, Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, JJ
Mrs. TASNEEM ABBAS --Appellant Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others --Respondents
C.A. No. 132-L of 2013, decided on 10th September, 2025.
(Against the judgment dated 07.05.2012 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in W.P. No. 28906 of 2011).
(a) Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance (XXI of 2007)--[since repealed]
Ss. 5(2), 8 & 9(a)---Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009), S.15--Eviction petition-Landlord and tenant relationship, existence of-Proof-Requirement of entering the particulars of tenancy with the rent registrar, non-compliance of-Effect-Whether such defect was curable-Landlord-tenant relationship, denial of-Tenant claiming to be owner of rented property by filing a suit for declaration-Effect-Brief facts of the matter were that the appellant (landlady) filed an eviction petition before ition before the rent tribunal seeking respondent No.3's (tenant) eviction-Rent tribunal allowed eviction and also directed payment of rent arrears--Respondent No.3 (tenant) filed an appeal and appellate court set aside the rent tribunal's findings by holding that the appellant (landlady) had not proved a landlord-tenant relationship-Against the appellate judgment the appellant filed a constitutional petition which was dismissed and the present appeal before the Supreme Court challenged that dismissal---Held: Section 8 of the 2007 Ordinance provided that an existing 1 g landlord and tenant as soon as possible, but not later than two years from the date of coming into force the said Ordinance, had to bring the tenancy in conformity with the provisions of the said Ordinance, whereas, Section 9 of the said Ordinance provided inter alia that if a tenancy did not conform with the provisions of the said Ordinance the rent tribunal could not entertain an application under the said Ordinance on behalf of the landlord, unless he had deposited a fine equivalent to ten percent of the annual value of the rent of the premises in the government treasury--Appellanttlandlady) and respondent No. 3 (tenant) had until 16.11.2010, to enter the particulars of the tenancy with the rent registrar so as to make it compliant with the requirements of Section 5(2) of the 2007 Ordinance--This requirement, remained unfulfilled till the present day-The vital question that needed to be determined was whether as a result of such non-compliance, the eviction petition was to be dismissed at the alter or whether an opportunity was to be given to the eviction petitioner to cure such defect-When the eviction petition was filed on 09.01.2008, the two-year grace period within which the tenancy agreement was required to be presented before the rent registrar had not lapsed-Omission to present the tenancy agreement before the rent registrar in accordance with Section 5(2) of the 2007 Ordinance within the two-year grace period could neither render the party seeking eviction of a tenant liable to pay the penalty/fine nor could the eviction petition he rejected on this ground---In the present car n the present case, the two-year grace period expired on ed on 16.11.2009 11.2009 and by that time, the appellant's eviction petition had not been decided--It was at this stage that either the rent tribunal could have required the appellant (landlady) to bring the tenancy in conformity with the requirements under Section 5(2) or Respondent No. 3 (tenant) could have taken objection as to the non-compliance with the requirements of the said provisions-Neither was done---Once such omission on the appellant's (landlady's) part was brought to the notice of the High Court, it ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to cure the defect by paying the fine in terms of Section 9(a) of the said Ordinance-Impugned judgment of the High Court was not sustainable on this score-With respect to the tenant/respondent No. 3 claiming to be the owner of the rented property, if and when he would succeed to get a decree from the civil court he could have the same executed by getting the possession of the rented property, however, until then he (tenant) could not arrogate to himself the status of the owner---Appellate court erred by requiring the appellant (landlady) to defend her title in the civil suit and unlawfully made this the basis for setting aside the eviction order passed by rent tribunal---It was deemed not proper to remand the matter to the rent tribunal-Impugned judgment passed by the High Court as well as the judgment passed by the appellate court were set aside and the matter was remanded to the appellate court instead of the rent tribunal to decide Respondent No.3's (tenant) appeal after affording him opportunity to pay the fine contemplated by Section 9(a) of the 2007 Ordinance for not having shown compliance with the requirements of Section 5(2) of the said Ordinance Present appeal was allowed, in circumstances.
(b) Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance (XXI of 2007)--[since repealed]
tenancy Ss.5(1), 5(2), 5(3) & 5(5)-Relationship of landlord and tenant, existence of-Proof-Execution and presentation of a tenancy agreement before the rent registrar-Pre-requisite-Re requisite-Requirement-Section 5(1) of the 2007 Ordinance mandated that a landlord shall not rent out a premises to a tenant except by a tenancy agreement, whereas ement, whereas Section 5(2) required a landlord to present the tent agreement before the rent registrar-Additionally, Section 5(3) required the rent registrar to enter the particulars of the tenancy in a register, affix his official seal on the tenancy agreement, retain a copy thereof and return the original tenancy agreement to the landlord-It is the entry of the tenancy agreement in the office of the rent registrar which Section 5(5) of the said Ordinance treated as proof of the relationship of landlord and tenant.
(c) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009).
5.15-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), 5.42-Tenant claiming ownership over rented property by filing a suit for declaration-Repercussions-Pendency of a civil suit filed by a tenant claiming to be an owner of rented premises cannot be a ground in an eviction. petition either to dismiss or stay the proceedings before the rent tribunal.
Mst. Musarrat Shaheen v. Mst. Verbeena Khan Afroz 2024 SCMR 1796; Nisar Khan v. Nadia Ali Butt 2024 SCMR 452; Muhammad Nisar v. Izhar Ahmed Sheikh PLD 2014 SC 347; Abdul Rasheed v. Maqbool Ahmed 2011 SCMR 320; Barkat Masih v. Manzoor Ahmad 2006 SCMR 1068; Jumma Khan v. Zarin Khan PLD 1999 SC 1101: Iqbal v. Rabia Bibi PLD 1991 SC 242 and Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad 1983 SCMR 106 rel.a
(d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-
-Art.84-Comparison of handwriting or signatures by court-Scope-Court making comparison on its own motion without any expert---Cautious approach-Courts have the power to compare the admitted signatures with the ones in dispute--But the rule of prudence is that comparison of signatures by courts as a mode of ascertaining the truth should be used with great care and caution Where a judge compares the handwriting or signatures with other documents which are produced before him and which are not challenged as fabricated, such a process of comparison by the court upon its own initiative and without the guidance of an expert is hazardous and recognizably inconclusive.
Sumaira Malik v. Umar Aslam Awan 2018 SCMR 1432 and Rehmat Ali Ismaila v. Khalid Mehmood 2004 SCMR 361 rel.
Salman Mansoor, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (via video link Karachi).
Ch. Muhammad Masud Akhtar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (via Video link (Lahore).
Assisted by: Mehbooh Irshad, Law Clerk, Supreme Court of Pakistan.