Eviction Order under Cantonment Rent Restriction Act 1963
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case was about a landlord-tenant dispute under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, which deals with eviction and rent matters for properties in cantonment areas. The Lahore High Court had earlier dismissed the tenants' appeal against an eviction order, but also directed them to pay rent from August 2001 until they vacated the premises, at Rs. 5,000 per month, before handing over possession.
The tenants challenged this part of the order before the Supreme Court, arguing that while a Rent Controller does have the authority to order eviction when the landlord-tenant relationship itself is disputed, no provision of the 1963 Act actually gives the Rent Controller or any higher court the power to also order payment of specific rent arrears as a condition for vacating the property. The landlord's side argued that such an order was permissible when there was no real dispute about the amount of rent owed.
The Supreme Court examined the Act and could not find any provision supporting the power to impose such a rent-payment condition, and the landlord's lawyer could not point to any legal provision or precedent either. As a result, the Court partly allowed the appeal, removing the condition requiring payment of rent arrears before vacating the premises. However, it clarified that the landlord could still separately claim any unpaid rent through proper legal proceedings. This case matters because it clarifies the limits of a Rent Controller's powers under the cantonment rent law.
یہ مقدمہ کینٹونمنٹ رینٹ ریسٹرکشن ایکٹ 1963ء کے تحت مکان مالک اور کرایہ دار کے درمیان ایک تنازعے سے متعلق تھا، جو چھاؤنی کے علاقوں میں جائیداد کے خالی کرانے اور کرایے کے معاملات سے متعلق ہے۔ لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے اس سے قبل کرایہ داروں کی اس اپیل کو خارج کر دیا تھا جو انہوں نے بے دخلی کے حکم کے خلاف دائر کی تھی، لیکن ساتھ ہی یہ ہدایت بھی دی تھی کہ وہ اگست 2001ء سے لے کر قبضہ خالی کرنے تک، قبضہ حوالے کرنے سے پہلے، 5000 روپے ماہانہ کے حساب سے کرایہ ادا کریں۔
کرایہ داروں نے حکم کے اس حصے کو سپریم کورٹ میں چیلنج کیا اور دلیل دی کہ اگرچہ رینٹ کنٹرولر کو یہ اختیار حاصل ہے کہ وہ بے دخلی کا حکم جاری کرے جب مکان مالک اور کرایہ دار کے تعلق پر ہی تنازع ہو، لیکن 1963ء کے ایکٹ میں ایسی کوئی شق موجود نہیں جو رینٹ کنٹرولر یا کسی اعلیٰ عدالت کو یہ اختیار دیتی ہو کہ وہ جائیداد خالی کرنے کی شرط کے طور
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2013 SC 13 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present: Ejaz Afzal Khan and Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry , JJ. IMRAN LATIF and another--Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SAIM JALIL and others--Respondents Civil Petitions No. 1234 & 1026 of 2012, decided on 20.9.2012. (On appeal from the judgment dated 07.03.2012 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in FAO 66 & 67/2008). Constitution of Pakistan , 1973-- ----Art. 185(3)--Leave to Appeal--Relationship of landlord and tenant--Power to ejectment order--Validity--Contention--Where relationship of landlord and tenant was denied Rent Controller had power to order ejectment of tenant but no provision of Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 empowers Rent Controller or any other Court in hierarchy to pass the order--Appeal was allowed. [P. 13] A Sh. Khawar , ASC for Petitioners (in both cases). Mr. Sanaullah Zahid , ASC for Respondent No. 1 (in C.P. No. 1234 of 2012). Mr. Nazir Ahmed Bhutta , ASC for Respondent No. 1 (in C.P. No. 1026 of 2012). Date of hearing: 20.09.2012 Order Ejaz Afzal Khan, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 07.03.2012 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, whereby the learned Judge in its Chambers dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by observing as under: "8. For the reasons supra, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The appeal being devoid of force is hereby dismissed. However, the appellant is given a period of two months from today for vacation of the rented premises subject to payment of rent from August, 2001 till vacation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that where relationship of landlord and tenant is denied the Rent Controller has the power to order ejectment of the tenant but no provision of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 empowers the Rent Controller or any other Court in the hierarchy to pass the order mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that where there has not been any dispute about the quantum of rent and the arrears thereof, the Rent Controller or for that matter any other Court in the hierarchy could pass an order directing the respondent to pay rent or its arrears.
4. We have gone through the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We have also read most of the provisions of the Act to find the one empowering the learned Rent Controller or any other Court in the hierarchy to pass the order mentioned above, but we could not find any. Nor could the learned counsel for the respondent advert to a provision or case law in this behalf. When this being the case we convert these petitions into appeals, allow CMAs for condonation of delay and partly allow the appeals by modifying the impugned judgments only to the extent of payment of rent from August, 2001 till vacation of the premises. However, none of the observations made above would debar the respondent from claiming arrears under the law from the appellants. (R.A.) Appeal allowed