AJK Rent Restriction Act, 1986

  1. S. 2 (2) — Word “Building” — Meaning. Khalid Rauf Mir v. A. Majeed 1997 SCR 275 (A)
  2. S. 13(3) — Eviction of tenant — Ground of personal need — Classification of rent deed regarding period of tenancy — All the Courts below had given findings on ground of agreement that the same had expired and after that new agreement was required to be executed — Analysis — Agreement regarding tenancy was unambiguous which showed that after 31st December, 2007, a new rent shall be determined and no new deed had to be executed which shows that at the time of execution of rent deed there was no intention of the landlord to terminate the rent deed — Landlord was only interested in the settlement of new rent — Agreement was intact and was not terminated or expired after 31.12.2007 — Impugned finding of High was based on misreading and non-reading of relevant portion of said agreement — It revealed from record and evidence that before instant ejectment petition, respondent got vacated other premises on ground of personal need but instead of using the premises for his own purposes, he re-let the same — Conduct of respondent was relevant in that regard — For the personal need the bona fide should be established by the landlord with unimpeachable evidence  — Mere moving an application for getting an agency of beverages did not substantiate the ground of bona fide need — In order to demonstrate good faith and bona fides on the part of landlord broad facts must be disclosed with a view to provide an opportunity to the opposite party to controvert the same and to satisfy the conscience of the Controller called upon to exercise his direction in favour of the landlord while uprooting and old tenant — Ejectment petition was dismissed — Appeal allowed. EVICTION OF TENANT (Personal need) Courts below had given finding that rent agreement had expired and after that new agreement was required to be executed. Supreme Court while allowing appeal dismissed ejectment petition. Muhammad Ilyas (Haji) v. Zafar Iqbal Saethi and 2 others 2013 SCR 213 (C)
  3. S. 14 — Ejectment — ‘Good faith’ — The bare statement of landlord that he needs shop for running his business does not prove the requirement of law. Khalid Rauf Mir v. Abdul Majeed and another 1997 SCR 275 (D)
  4. S. 14 — Ejectment — When it is admitted that the appellant had vacated previous premises six months prior to seeking ejectment of respondent he was not entitled to relief prayed for even if he was in genuine need for running his business in disputed shop. Khalid Rauf Mir v. Abdul Majeed and another 1997 SCR 275 (C)
  5. Section 14 read with paramerteria section 13 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 — powers of Rent Controller — proposition regarding setting aside ex-parte order — High Court drew the conclusion that the Rent Controller is not vested with the powers to recall the ex-parte order and it amounts to review of the previous order — provisions of section 14 have vested the Rent Controller with the powers to pass suitable orders on the application of the parties. On the specific question of setting aside the ex-parte order conclusion drawn by the High Court is consistent with the principle of law enunciated by the superior Courts. Held: there is unanimity of the Courts that the Rent Controller is vested with the powers to set aside the ex-parte order.Liaqat Ali Gillani v. Khalil Ahmed Butt & another 2014 SCR 698 (B) 1983 CLC 2981,PLJ 1979 Lah. 589, PLD 1972 Lah. 603, 1980 SCMR 787 and1980 CLC 1009 rel.
  6. S. 14 (3) (A) (ii) (C) — The word building would mean a rented building. Khalid Rauf Mir v. Abdul Majeed and another 1997 SCR 275 (B)
  7. Ss. 14(3)(A)(ii)(C), 2(2) — See AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, Ss. 42, 44. Waqar Ahmed and another Versus Kh. Mumtaz Ahmed and 2 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 1202 (B)
  8. S. 14(8) — On whatever ground the ejectment is sought, if the order of the Rent Controller is not complied with the punitive action can be pressed into service under this section — The punitive action stipulated under this section can be rightly ordered in view of the respective contentions of the parties without recording any evidence. A. Rashid v. Mst. Qalandar Jan 1994 SCR 235 (B)
  9. S. 14 (8) — Mere fact that order passed by the Rent Controller does not specifically state that it was passed under sub-section (8) of section 14 of the Act does not make the order ineffective. Muslim Commercial Bank v. The Appellate Authority & 2 others 1998 SCR 229 (A)
  10. S. 14(8) and S.4 — Where ejectment is sought — Rent Controller is legally competent to direct the tenant to deposit a fixed sum towards the payment of the outstanding rent — The provisions of section 14 are not governed by section 4 of the Act. M. Ilyas afridi v. Rent Controller and another 1997 SCR 200 (A)
  11. Ss. 14 & 21 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Ss. 42 & 44 — Ejectment of tenant on ground of default in payment of rent — Landlord, in the present case, filed ejectment application against the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent, and in said application neither there was any ground that tenant had sublet the premises, nor there was an issue on that point — Appellate Authority/Rent Controller, had ordered the ejectment, apart from default in payment of rent on the ground of subletting, which was a clear departure from the pleadings of the parties — Validity — Court could not travel beyond the pleadings of the parties but had to go by the pleadings and it had no jurisdiction to decide a case, which had not been put forward by any party in the pleadings — Judgment of the Appellate Authority to the extent of subletting was not maintainable, in circumstances. Ehtezaz Asghar v. Muhammad Sajawal 2012 SCR 297 (A)
  12. S. 14 & 21 — Default in payment of rent — Ejectment application — Landlord had alleged that tenant who was paying rent had stopped paying the same from August, 2004 and did not pay or tender rent from that period to January, 2005 and being defaulter, was liable to ejectment on that ground — Validity — Rent receipts produced by the tenant had shown that none of the said receipts pertained to the period which the landlord claimed that the tenant was defaulter — Most of  said receipts pertained to other cases — Said receipts therefore, were not helpful  to the tenant, who did not appear in the court as a witness to disprove the allegation that he was defaulter — Tenant who was proved to be defaulter, was liable to be ejected on that ground — High Court, after perusal of record had concluded that judgment of Appellate Tribunal was based on the record — When the judgment of the lower Tribunal was decided on the record, and default in payment of rent was proved, writ petition could not be decided against the record — Appeal against judgment of High Court, was dismissed by the Supreme Court, in circumstances. Ehtezaz Asghar v. Muhammad Sajawal 2012 SCR 297 (B)
  13. —Section 18(7) —writ—competency of—contention that under section 18(7), the order of the Rent Controller subject to result of appeal is final and cannot be called in question in any Court including High Court by appeal or otherwise—The Court:- held:—-“Prima facie, the nature of the impugned order is preliminary and without adversely affecting the rights and interest of the parties. The argument advanced on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner appears to be the result of superficial approach, as the writ jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court by the Constitution cannot be curtailed and controlled by the subordinate legislation. Even otherwise, the provision of special law Rent Restriction Act, 1986 does not create bar for filing the writ petition as it is clearly mentioned that the judgment of the Rent Controller subject to the result of the appeal shall be final and shall not be called in question in appeal or otherwise. The provision speaks that the intention of the Legislature is to provide remedy of only one appeal while excluding the further remedy of appeal or revision etc. under the special law but it does not operate against the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Moreover, under this provision the judgment of the Rent Controller is declared final whereas in the writ petition, generally, the parties approach to the High Court against the authority who passed the judgment while not acting according to law. Thus, it means that the grievance is against the authority and not against the judgment, therefore, despite declaring the judgment as final, the act of the authority or a person dealing with the affairs of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, is not immuned from the judicial review of the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court”. Khawaja Muhammad Ishaq v. Incharge Ufone Regional Officer 2017 SCR 674
  14. S. 21 — See Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rent Restriction Act (XIII of 1986), S.14. Ehtezaz Asghar v. Muhammad Sajawal 2012 SCR 297 (A & B)
  15. Tenant has to deposit all the rent due from him and also to deposit regularly the future rent till the final decision of case before 15th day of each month. Corresponding provision to section 14(8) of Rent Registration Act is section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. Muslim Commercial Bank v. The Appellate Authority & 2 others 1998 SCR 229 (B)
  16. None of the pay orders was deposited before 15th of every month — Where the situation be that landlord had refused to accept the pay order and cheque of tenant is returned in treasury is a necessary requirement. MCB v. The Appellate Authority 1998 SCR 229 (C)
  17. Rent Restriction Act has been enacted to avoid delay and summary proceedings are to be taken under it — No order should be passed by any authority having exclusive jurisdiction in such manner which may by-pass the law of the land — The respondent himself invoked the jurisdiction of the civil Judge — He on the basis of conflicting pleading was not justified to seek indulgence of the Rent Controller. Mahmood Ahmed Qureshi v. Zaheer Ahmad Qureshi  2006 SCR 32 (B)
  18. Rent Controller — Nature of inquiries conducted by Rent Controller — the nature of the inquiry conducted by the Rent Controller is akin to the inquiry conducted by the executive officer. Although, some of the functions of Rent Controller are quasi judicial in character yet he is not required to act judicially in discharging many of his functions. Liaqat Ali Gillani v. Khalil Ahmed Butt & another 2014 SCR 698 (A) PLJ 1983 SC (AJ&K) 212 rel.
  19. Held: setting aside an ex-parte order does not amount to review. Liaqat Ali Gillani v. Khalil Ahmed Butt & another 2014 SCR 698 (C) PLJ 1979 Lah. 589 & 2008 SCMR 568.
  20. Rent proceedings — applicability of CPC — although Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Controller, however he is not debarred while conducting the proceedings or exercising powers to take guidance from the settled principle of law and justice incorporated in CPC. The Rent Controller is empowered according to spirit and scheme of law to adopt any suitable mode of law while exercising the powers as the circumstances and the administration of justice demands. Liaqat Ali Gillani v. Khalil Ahmed Butt & another 2014 SCR 698 (D) 2008 SCMR 568 rel. 
  21. — Rent Controller—nature of proceedings —Held —the Rent Controller is vested with the vast powers. Even he is not bound to follow the procedure stipulated in Civil Procedure Code and has discretionary power to hold inquiry. Ch. Fakhur-uz-Zaman v. Hassan Ali & others 2019 SCR 62 (A) PLJ 1983 SC (AJK) 212 rel
error: Content is protected !!