IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN. 
MR. JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA. 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN.  
 
 
Civil Petition No.3068 of 2017 
Against judgment dated 04.08.2017 of High Court 
of Sindh at Karachi, passed in Constitution 
Petition No.S-303 of 2010. 
 
Muhammad Iqbal Haider 
 
 
 
Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
 
 
1st ADJ, Karachi Central & others  
 
Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s):   
Raja M. Ibrahim Satti, Sr.ASC 
 
 
Syed Rafaqat H. Shah, AOR  
 
For Respondent No.3:  
In person. 
 
Date of Hearing : 
 
27.09.2017. 
 
O R D E R   
 
 
 
IJAZ UL AHSAN, J-. The petitioner seeks leave to 
appeal against judgment dated 04.08.2007 rendered by High 
Court of Sindh at Karachi. Through the impugned judgment, 
a Constitution Petition bearing No.S-303 of 2010 filed by the 
petitioner was dismissed.  
 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts necessary for decision of 
this lis are that Respondent No.3 filed an application under 
Section 15(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 
(SRPO) against the petitioner claiming to be owner of the 
rented premises (subject matter of the dispute). She sought his 
eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent and 
unauthorized commercial use of the rented premises. The 
Rent Controller seized of the matter passed an order dated 
Civil Petition No.3068 of 2017 
 
2 
17.07.2008 under Section 16(1) of the SRPO (“tentative rent 
order”) directing the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent for 
the past three years amounting to Rs.450,000/- within a 
period of 25 days of the date of the order and also to deposit 
future rent. This order was assailed by the petitioner before 
the High Court of Sindh at Karachi through a Constitution 
Petition bearing No.S-346 of 2008. Initially, operation of the 
order of the Rent Controller dated 17.07.2008 was suspended 
vide order dated 11.08.2008. (This was the last day for 
deposit of rent as ordered by the Rent Controller). However, 
subsequently the Constitution Petition was dismissed on 
29.08.2008. Aggrieved of such dismissal, the petitioner 
approached this Court through Civil Petition No.1193 of 2008 
in which vide order dated 22.09.2008, the order of the High 
Court as well as that of the Rent Controller were suspended. 
Subsequently, the Civil Petition was also dismissed in terms 
of judgment dated 09.06.2009. A Review Petition (CRP No.33-
K of 2009) was filed but the same was withdrawn on 
02.02.2010.  
 
3. 
 
It appears that while the aforenoted matters were 
pending, Respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 
16(2) of the SRPO before the Rent Controller praying that the 
defence of the petitioner may be struck off as he had failed to 
comply with the order for deposit of tentative rent. Vide order 
dated 
03.12.2009, 
the 
Rent 
Controller 
accepted 
the 
application, struck off the defence of the petitioner and 
directed him to handover vacant physical possession of the 
Civil Petition No.3068 of 2017 
 
3 
rented premises to Respondent No.3 within a period of 45 
days from the date of the order.  
 
4. 
 
The petitioner being aggrieved of this order filed an 
appeal which was dismissed. The Constitution Petition filed 
before the High Court to assail the appellate judgment also 
met the same fate. Hence, this Civil Petition for Leave to 
Appeal.  
 
5. 
 
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends 
that the Rent Controller as well as the High Court erred in 
law in passing and upholding the order relating to payment of 
tentative rent without first deciding the question of ownership 
of Respondent No.3 and her title in the property in question. 
He maintains that admittedly suits for specific performance 
as well as cancellation of sale deed had been filed by the 
mother of the petitioner against Mst. Nasreen Jehan Ghori 
(Respondent No.4). She had agreed to sell the property and 
had entered into an agreement to sell as well as an additional 
agreement to sell on the basis of which the former had paid 
certain amounts. She had also, with the consent of 
Respondent No.4, retained possession of the premises. He 
submits that relationship of landlord and tenant had been 
denied by the petitioner and without resolving the said 
question, the order for payment of tentative rent could not 
have been passed.  
 
6. 
 
The learned ASC further submits that although 
default had been committed in compliance of the order for 
deposit of tentative rent, the said amount was ultimately 
Civil Petition No.3068 of 2017 
 
4 
deposited on 15.06.2009 in consequence of which in his 
opinion the default stood cured. In this context, he has drawn 
our attention to an order passed by this Court in Review 
Petition No.33-K of 2009 to argue that this Court had 
permitted him to agitate all such points relating to timely 
deposit of tentative rent before the Executing Court. He has 
finally argued that notwithstanding the adverse findings 
recorded by this Court in its order dated 09.06.2009 in Civil 
Petition No.1193 of 2008, his right to agitate the same 
questions again in the second round of litigation when he was 
challenging his eviction order was still alive. In support of his 
contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on 
Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad (PLD 1983 Supreme Court 
1064); Miskina Jan v. Rehmat Din (1992 SCMR 1149); Umar 
Hayat Khan v. Inayatullah Butt (1994 SCMR 572); and 
Muhammad Afzal v. Virbai (1993 CLC 1702). 
 
7. 
 
We have heard the learned ASC for the petitioner 
and considered his arguments. The main thrust of the 
arguments advanced by him is that the relationship of 
landlord and tenant had been denied on the basis of the 
agreements to sell executed between Respondent No.4 and 
the mother of the petitioner. That being so and the ownership 
of the property being in dispute, an order for payment of 
tentative rent under Section 16(1) of the SRPO could not have 
been passed. Consequently, his defence could not have been 
struck off for non compliance of the said order. However, we 
have noted that this aspect of the matter was fully addressed 
by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The 
Civil Petition No.3068 of 2017 
 
5 
controversy relating to denial of relationship of landlord & 
tenant and pendency of litigation between the parties and the 
legality of the order for deposit of rent was examined and 
definitive findings were recorded by this Court in its judgment 
dated 09.06.2009 in Civil Petition No.1193 of 2008 in the 
following terms:- 
4. 
We have heard the petitioner as well as the learned 
counsel for the contesting respondent No.2 at length and 
have also perused the available record. We find that the 
institution of two civil suits by the petitioner; one for specific 
performance of agreement and the other for cancellation of 
sale deed of the respondent No.2 per se, would not be 
sufficient to refuse compliance of an order of the Rent 
Controller under Section 16(1) of the Ordinance pending final 
determination. Reliance can be placed on the cases of Nazir 
Ahmed V. Mst. Sardar Bibi & others (1989 SCMR 913), Mst. 
Bor Bibi V. Abdul Qadir (1996 SCMR 87), Waheedullah V. 
Mst. Rehana Nasim & others (2004 SCMR 1568), Haji 
Jumma Khan V. Haji Zarin Khan (PLD 1999 SC 1101), 
Khawaja Ammar Hussain V. Muhammad Shabbiruddin 
Khan (PLD 1986 Karachi 74), Habib Khan V. Haji Haroon-ur-
Rasheed (1989 CLC 783), Gohar Ali Shah V. Shahzada Alam 
(NLR 1999 Civil 419), Iqbal and others V. Mst. Rabia Bibi and 
another (PLD 1991 SC 242) and Syed Imran Ahmed V. Bilal 
and another (Civil Appeal No.2230 of 2008 decided by this 
Court on 9.6.2009). Once the petitioner was, prima facie, 
shown to be inducted as a tenant of the demised premises, 
he could not claim any exemption from payment of rent on 
account of institution of suits for specific performance and for 
cancellation of sale deed. Article 115 of the Qanoon-e-
Shahadat Order, 1984 lays down that no tenant of 
immovable property shall, during the continuance of the 
tenancy, be permitted to deny that his landlord had a title to 
such property. The relationship of landlord and a tenant is 
not severed even if the execution of an agreement to sell is 
admitted. 
The 
petitioner 
was 
not 
absolved 
of 
his 
responsibility of compliance of order passed by the Rent 
Controller under the provisions of Section 16 of the 
Ordinance for making of payment of arrears and future rent. 
In our view, the impugned judgment of the High Court is 
plainly correct to which no exception can be taken. 
 
5. 
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in 
this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is 
refused accordingly. 
 
8. 
 
These questions having been finally determined 
between the parties by this Court, we are not persuaded to 
revisit the same. Further, once it was held by this Court in 
this very case that petitioner did not have any reason for non 
compliance of the order of the Rent Controller pending final 
Civil Petition No.3068 of 2017 
 
6 
determination of the lis, the trial Court as well as the 
appellate fora had no choice but to pass appropriate orders 
on the basis of non compliance of order for deposit of rent 
(which has not seriously been disputed) and in light of the 
judgment of this Court on 09.06.2009 in Civil Petition 
No.1193 of 2008. 
 
9. 
 
We have repeatedly asked the learned counsel for 
the petitioner to explain the delay which occurred in 
compliance of the order dated 17.07.2008 passed by the Rent 
Controller directing for payment of tentative rent. We have 
also asked him to show us from the record if any attempt was 
made by the petitioner at any stage of the proceedings to give 
any reason which prevented him from complying with the 
order in question. However, he has been unable either to 
explain the delay or point to any material on record that may 
indicate that any attempt was made to explain such delay 
before any forum. It is settled law that an order passed by a 
Court (whether or not a party considers it just, valid and fair) 
has to be complied with subject to his right to challenge the 
same before the fora provided in law. In case of non 
compliance, the consequences provided in law are bound to 
follow. In the instant case, the order for deposit of rent passed 
by the Rent Controller was challenged and upheld upto this 
Court and it was unequivocally held that, “we find that the 
institution of two civil suits by the petitioner; one for specific 
performance of agreement and the other for cancellation of sale 
deed of the respondent No.2 per se would not be sufficient to 
refuse compliance of an order of the Rent Controller under 
Civil Petition No.3068 of 2017 
 
7 
Section 16(1) of the Ordinance pending final determination.” As 
such, the petitioner has no body but himself to blame if his 
defence was struck off on account of his admitted failure to 
comply with the order leading to an order for his ejectment 
from the rented premises.  
 
10. 
 
As far as the argument of the learned counsel that 
delay in compliance of the order was condoned or stood cured 
by reason of an order passed by this Court in CRP No.33-K of 
2009 is concerned, we are unable to subscribe to the same. 
Perusal of the order passed by this Court on 02.02.2010 by 
no 
stretch 
of 
interpretation 
supports 
the 
conclusion 
canvassed by the learned counsel. Likewise, we are unable to 
agree that the effect of the interim order passed by this Court 
in Civil Petition No.1193 of 2008 dated 22.09.2008 furnished 
any justification for delay in compliance of the order of the 
Rent Controller relating to deposit of tentative rent. It is clear 
and obvious that the words, “till then, subject to all just 
exceptions” saved the rights that had already accrued in 
favour of Respondent No.3 by reason of default on the part of 
the petitioner to deposit tentative rent as ordered by the Rent 
Controller.  
 
11. 
 
Further, Civil Petition No.1193 of 2008 was 
ultimately dismissed on 09.06.2009 with the finding that the 
petitioner had no justification for non compliance of the order 
of the Rent Controller dated 17.07.2008. As such, we are in 
no manner of doubt that default on the part of the petitioner  
Civil Petition No.3068 of 2017 
 
8 
had neither been cured nor condoned by any Court in any 
proceedings. We have gone through the case law cited at the 
bar. We find that the said judgments have been rendered in a 
different set of facts and circumstances, are not intended to 
lay down the entire law on the subject and are clearly 
distinguishable. These are irrelevant and of no help to the 
case of the petitioner. 
 
12. 
 
The impugned judgment of the High Court is, in 
our opinion, well reasoned and based upon the correct 
interpretation of the applicable principles of law on the 
subject and is unexceptionable. As such, no interference is 
required in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of 
the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.  
 
13. 
 
For reasons recorded above, this petition is 
dismissed and leave refused.       
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
Announced in Court on __________. 
 
 
Judge  
 
 
 
 
ISLAMABAD, THE 
27th of September, 2017 
ZR/*