Law: Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001

Section: IV,17,19

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

(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 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 beyond the written lease period---Later, Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 (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 S.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-ininterest, 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…