Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Section: 13,15(2),(ii)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----Ss.13 & 15---Eviction proceedings---Tenant subletting demised premises without landlord s written consent---Impermissibility---Sub-lessee failing to establish lawful possession---Sub-lessee claiming ownership of demised premises on the basis of a mere sale agreement---Legality---Sale agreement--Nature and legal effect---Sale agreement not being a document of title and having limited evidentiary value---Claim of ownership by tenant or sub-lessee in rent proceedings---Scope and limitations---Situation where tenant or sub-lessee asserts ownership of demised premises---Mandatory legal course highlighted--Obligation to vacate the premises and pursue civil remedy before competent forum---Principle---The petitioner, owner/landlord, rented out the demised premises to respondent No.1/tenant under a rent agreement in 1988 containing a prohibition against subletting; however, in 1990, respondent No.1 sublet the premises to respondent No.2 without the petitioner s (landlord) written consent and in some instances possession was further handed over to respondent No.3, while rent fell into arrears---The petitioner filed rent applications seeking eviction and recovery of arrears, which were allowed by the rent controller; first rent appeals filed by the respondents were allowed by the appellate court, reversing the rent controller s findings---The petitioner thereafter filed constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging the appellate judgments---Held: Record showed that respondent No.2 (sub-lessee) although denied relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner (landlord), however, he had failed to produce any ownership documents and/or to prove his legal possession over the demised property---In the evidence respondent No.1 (tenant) candidly admitted that he entered into rent agreement with the petitioner (landlord) and that he sublet the demised premises to respondent No.2 and that since he did not receive payment from respondent No.2 as such he could not pay the same to the petitioner---Appellate Court completely lost sight of the fact that respondent No.2 failed to justify his…