 West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-------S. 13(2...](https://img5.juridipedia.com/275/265/122178767972752657.jpg)
22/02/2026
2026 S C M R 31 [Supreme Court of Pakistan]
(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-------S. 13(2)(i)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Landlord seeking ejectment of tenant and recovery of arrears of rent---Claim of arrears filed by landlord after four years without any credible evidence---Burden on landlord to prove claim of rent---High Court allowed the ejectment petition along with recovery of rent---Legality--Respondent / landlord filed an ejectment application before the rent controller against petitioners / tenants seeking possession of the shop in question along with recovery of rent from 2016 onwards---The respondent / landlord claimed that the tenancy agreement had expired in 2016, yet the petitioners retained possession after locking the premises---The petitioners submitted a reply asserting that they had already handed over vacant possession and paid all dues but did not contest further and were proceeded against ex-parte---The rent controller allowed the ejectment application but rejected the rent arrears claim which was affirmed in appeal---However, High Court set aside the concurrent findings, granting ejectment along with recovery of rent from January 2016 to January 2024, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court---Held: Both the rent controller and the appellate authority concurrently found that the respondent / landlord failed to discharge the burden of proving rent arrears or continued possession by the petitioners after 2016---These findings were based on appreciation of evidence, or the lack thereof, and did not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error---No witness was produced to support the claim that the petitioners / tenants continued to occupy the premises after 2016---The individual named S , in whose purported assurance the respondent / landlord allegedly refrained from taking possession, was neither impleaded as a party nor summoned as a witness, therefore, such omission constituted withholding of the best available evidence---Furthermore, the statutory regime under Section 13(2)(i) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 prescribed a period of sixty days for initiating proceedings in cases of non-payment of rent, in the absence of a fixed timeline in the tenancy agreement---In the present case, the tenancy agreement expired in 2016 and the ejectment application was filed in 2020 and no explanation was offered for this extraordinary delay, nor was there any plea of acknowledgment or revival of the tenancy in the interceding period---The unexplained lapse of nearly four years was fatal to the claim, both on grounds of limitation and laches---The finding of the High Court that the respondent/landlord was entitled to rent for eight years, in the absence of proof of possession or an ongoing tenancy, disregarded fundamental rules of evidence---The landlord, having admitted that the shop remained locked and having produced no cogent evidence to show that the petitioners/tenants used or benefited from the premises during that period, cannot be awarded rent merely because the tenants failed to actively contest the proceedings---Impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, in circumstances.
