Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 SHC 1361
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Const. P. 282/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - M/s. Universal Express (Pvt.) Ltd (Petitioner)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 1361. In this matter between Const. P. 282/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - M/s. Universal Express (Pvt.) Ltd (Petitioner) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 282/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2026 SHC KHI 1361 PARTIES: M/s. Universal Express (Pvt.) Ltd (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 16-JUN-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
C.P No. S-282 of 2025
Petitioner M/s. Universal Express (Pvt.) Ltd
: Through M/s. Badar Alam, Muhammad Kashif Badar, Sarfraz Qadir & Ammar Nazeer, Advocates
Respondent No.1 Karachi Properties Investment Company (Pvt.) Ltd : Through M/s. Ahmed Khan Lund, Yasir Hussain Malik & Muhammad Ayaz Mari, Advocates
Dates of Hearing : 27.04.2026 & 11.05.2026
Date of Judgment : 16.06.2026
Date of Announcement : 19.06.2026
---------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.- By means of instant constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged Judgment dated 24.02.2025 passed by learned XII - Additional District Judge / Model Civil Appellate Court, Karachi South in First Rent Appeal No.291 of 2024 filed by the petitioner / tenant, whereby he has upheld the eviction order dated 08.10.2024 passed by 1st Senior Civil Judge / Rent Controller, Karachi South vide Rent Application No.289 of 2018 filed by Respondent No.1 / landlord, with certain modifications.
2. Brief facts of the case, relevant for purpose of deciding this constitutional petition, are; that the applicant /landlord viz. respondent No.1 herein filed Rent Case No. 289 of 2018 against the opponent i.e. the petitioner in instant petition, stating therein that the applicant being a limited liability Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1984, is owner/landlord of the building, commonly known as “The Hotel Metropole Building”, situated at Plot No. 23/1, CL -5, Civil Lines, Club Road, Karachi. Initially in 2006, M/s. Akbar Group were inducted as tenants in the premises / Shop No. 28 admeasuring 680 square ft. and Off ices No. 150 and 151 admeasuring 1024
C.P No.S-282 of 2025 Page 2 of 35
square ft. situated in the said building (hereinafter referred to as „demised premises‟). It was further stated that after vacation of the demised premises by M/s. Akbar Group, the same was handed over to the opponent / petitioner namely, M/s. Universal Express Pvt. Limited on the same terms and conditions stipulated in the tenancy agreement. However, due to violations, alterations, default and delay / short payment in monthly rent etc. by the petitioner / tenant, the s ubstance of the agreement ceased to operate and the opponent was carrying on business in violation of the terms, conditions and circulations settled by the respondent / landlord. It was further averred that monthly rent of the demised premises at the time of filing rent case was Rs.256,654/. It was grievance of the applicant / landlord that; the normal practice of the opponent / tenant had been that he never paid/tendered rent within the stipulated time. The opponent was in the habit of delaying the payment of rent deliberately and intentionally, thereby causing mental torture to the applicant / landlord. It was further asserted that, the opponent was under legal obligation to pay the maintenance charges including water charges etc. but he failed and/or wil lfully neglected to pay the same despite repeated oral and written demands made by the applicant. In the circumstances, the opponent / petitioner committed default in payment of maintenance charges. Apart from above, the opponent / tenant has also committed such unlawful acts which have seriously impaired the material value and utility of the building. Besides, the tenant was in the habit of not receiving the bills, therefore, the applicant / landlord had to send the same via courier. It was further stated that the opponent / tenant has also committed encroachment from the back side of the Hotel Building and has affixed a staircase without written permission of the applicant. Apart from this, a board is welded at the shop on the parapets of the building whic h has weakened the parapet further. It was further stated that Air -conditioners are installed in such a manner that the outers thereof are placed on the parapets of the building without any adequate arrangement for drainage of water. This has not only dam aged the immediate walls and structure of the building but has also ruined the beauty and prestige of the building. The opponent / tenant has also displayed hoardings and boards of unauthorized / prohibited size on the parapets of the building without obtaining oral or written permission from the landlord which has also impaired material value and utility of the Building and substantially diminished the appeal of the Building‟s façade. It was
C.P No.S-282 of 2025 Page 3 of 35
further stated that the opponent has extended his area by constru cting small portion in the building without permission of the landlord which has not only de-shaped the structure of the building but it also amounts to encroaching upon the area of the building. Besides, the opponent has placed heavy industrial generator at the open space, which has no nexus whatsoever with the tenement in question. Its deep sonorous voice disrupts the normal functions of other occupiers of the building as well as the applicant / landlord, and despite repeated verbal and written requests, the opponent has willfully failed and/or neglected to remove the same. It was further stated that the opponent has arranged a valet parking on the outer premises of the building, without permission of the applicant. Despite warning and letters issued, the shop and offices remain open for late hours which increases the cost and security threats of building. It was further stated that in order to harass the applicant / landlord, frivolous and baseless complaints are made by the opponent very frequently and s uch complaints, threats and frivolous criminal litigation have to be defended by the applicant, which has made life of the applicant / landlord miserable; besides, such acts have also created havoc and nuisance for the landlord. It was further stated tha t, as per management policy, none is allowed to disfigure the doors/outlooks of the building without seeking permission from the landlord, but the opponent has changed the color of the doors of the premises in complete violation of the management policy, w hich is hazardous for the applicant / landlord. It was also averred in the rent application that, the opponents instead of behaving and acting in a civilized manner, have acted in an uncanny and derogatory manner and have always tried to maneuver their wa y against the interest and policy of the owner / landlord in an unlawful manner ; however, the applicant earnestly tried to resolve all reasonable complaints at all times as and when communicated by the concerned tenants. However, despite notices by the owner / landlord in respect of illegal and unlawful practices and violations on the part of opponents, willfully failed and/or neglected to redress the same. According to the applicant / landlord, the acts of the opponent have conclusively diminished the mate rial value or utility of the demised premises and have a tendency to repeat and continue the same which will further endanger the tenement being 70 years old structure. The opponent was served with notice/letter dated 1 st February 2018, to pay his remainin g amount of rent, which he miserably failed to comply with.
C.P No.S-282 of 2025 Page 4 of 35
3. Upon service of notice, the opponent / petitioner filed written statement, stating therein that the applicant / landlord has filed present application through so called authorized representa tive without filing any power of attorney or authorization letter, that no cause of action accrued for filing the rent application as the applicant has not come before the Court with clean hands therefore, the rent application is liable to be dismissed. Ho wever, the opponent admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was sated that initially an agreement of lease was executed between applicant / landlord and M/s. Akbar Enterprise in respect of demised premises and later on such lease agreement was transferred to the opponent viz. Universal Express vide Addendum dated 21 -08-2006, which was renewed on 05-03-2007 and, thereafter on 15 -02-2008 another addendum was executed between the parties which was on perpetuity basis. It was further averred that, the opponent is running its business in Shop No. 28 while in Office No. 150 M/s. Fazal-e-Rabbi Enterprises and in Office No. 151 Fazal-e-Rabbi Limousine Service are running their business and separate addendums were executed between the applicant and the said companies. It was further stated that the opponent is paying rent in respect of Shop No. 28 and Offices No. 150 and 151 at the rate of Rs.2,33,322/- per month without any default or delay in payment of monthly rent. It was further a sserted that since the inception of tenancy, all the tenants used to maintain their tenements themselves and there was no question of maintenance charges. It was also stated that the opponent / tenant never encroached upon any area of the building, and all the construction, renovation or any alteration have been made with the written permission of the applicant / landlord. It was further stated that no display board is fixed on parapets, rather the same is fixed on the shed. Likewise, the outers of the air conditioners are not installed on parapets but the same are installed on an iron stand on the roof for which the opponent has already obtained written permission of the applicant / landlord. The opponent was also allowed by the applicant itself to install the generators. It was further asserted that the tenement is situated at a busy road and there is no arrangement of parking in the building or adjacent area to accommodate the respectable clients and customers of the opponent, therefore, he arranged a val et parking to accommodate his valuable clients and customers and also in order to avoid any obstruction in the flow of smooth traffic. In the circumstances, the rent application is not maintainable and prayer was made for its dismissal.
C.P No.S-282 of 2025 Page 5 of 35
4. On the pleading s of the parties, 1 st Rent Controller, Karachi South framed the issues relating to willful default in payment of rent, subletting the demised premises as well as impairing the material value and utility of the premises in question.
5. After recording ev idence of the parties, hearing the arguments of their respective advocates, Rent Controller allowed the Rent Case vide Judgment dated 08-10-2024. The opponent / tenant assailed the said judgment by means of filing First Rent Appeal. After full -fledged hea ring, the appeal was dismissed, hence the tenant / petitioner has filed instant constitutional petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material made available before me on the record.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties and have passed the order/judgment in a hasty and mechanical manner, thus the same are liable to be set aside. It was further submitted that the rent application was not maintainable as the landlord had filed rent application through his attorney without filing any power of attorney or authorization letter.
8. It was further submitted that the landlord / owner of the same Building viz. Metropole Hotel had filed rent case against one of their tenants namely, Habib Carpets on similar grounds and the courts below had decided the case in favour of the landlord and the tenant was ordered to vacate the shop occupied by them ; however, while hearing the c onstitutional petition filed by the tenant, this Court in the case of Habib Carpets (PVT.) Limited Vs. Karachi Properties Investment Company (PVT.) Limited (KPICPL), reported in 2022 MLD 1754 [Sindh] reversed the concurrent findings of the courts below and ultimately decided the case in favour of the tenant and against the landlord viz. respondent No.1 in the present case. Not only this, but even Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Karachi Propert ies Investment Company (PVT.) LTD Vs. Habib Carpets (PVT.) Limited, reported in 2024 SCMR 1354, upheld the said judgment passed by this Court, therefore, following the dictum laid down by this Court and the Apex Court, instant petition may be allowed and the impugned order / judgment of the courts below may be set aside in this case too. It was further submitted
C.P No.S-282 of 2025 Page 6 of 35
that the petitioner / tenant had been paying monthly rent without any default / delay on his part; however, the trial court as well as the appellate court have given their findings on this point on technical basis. It was further submitted that no date was fixed for tendering the rent and the landlord used to accept the rent whenever tendered by the petitioner, as such, by his conduct, he waived his right of filing ejectment application on the ground of default / delay in payment of rent. Learned counsel also attacked the schedule of default filed by the landlord available at page 437 of the Court file as the same does not relate to the premises occu pied by the petitioner but the same relates to other three shops. It was further submitted that so far as alleged default in payment of rent for the months of February and March, 2018 is concerned, the courts below did not take into consideration that by v irtue of Section 15(2)(ii) of SRPO, 1979 sixty days grace time was available to the petitioner / tenant and he could have tendered the rent for these two months in May and June, 2018 respectively, as such the finding of the courts below relating to the sai d default was contrary to legal position. It was further submitted that the Rent Controller in excess of his jurisdiction, allowed the ejectment application by considering the alleged default / delay in payment of rent for the months of May, June and July, 2020 i.e. during proceedings of rent application although there was no pleading or prayer in the rent application to this effect.
9. It was further submitted that since the inception of tenancy, all the tenants used to maintain their tenements themselve s, therefore no question arose for payment of maintenance charges. It was further submitted that the petitioner / tenant never encroached upon any area of the building, and all the construction, renovation or alteration had been made with the written permission of the respondent / landlord. It was further submitted that no display board was affixed on parapets, rather the same was affixed on the shed. It was further submitted that the outers of the air conditioners were not installed on parapets but the sa me were installed on an iron stand on the roof and all such works were carried out with written permission of the respondent / landlord and even the generator was installed / placed after obtaining permission of the landlord. It was further submitted that as there was no arrangement of parking inside the hotel building or adjacent area to accommodate the respectable clients and customers of the petitioner, therefore, a valet parking was arranged. It was further submitted that the petitioner viz. M/s. Univer sal Express Limited has no concern with M/s.
C.P No.S-282 of 2025 Page 7 of 35
Fazal-e-Rabbi Enterprises and Fazal -e-Rabbi Limousine Service who are running their independent business in office No. 150 & 151 respectively, therefore the courts below have wrongly held that the petitioner has sublet the demised premises to aforesaid two companies / firms. According to learned counsel, the courts below did not take into consideration above aspects of the case and their findings are based on misreading / non -reading of the evidence adduced by th e parties. Lastly, he prayed that by allowing instant petition, the order / judgment passed by the courts below may be set aside.
10. Conversely, it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 / landlord that the Rent Controller had passed the order / judgment in accordance with the law after properly evaluating / appraising the evidence brought on record and likewise the Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller by applying judicious mind to such findings, therefore the order/ judgment passed by the courts below do not require any interference by this court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. It was further submitted that M/s. Fazl -e-Rabi and Fazal -e-Rabbi Limousine Service are sister concerns of the petitione r company namely, Universal Express which fact has been admitted by the petitioner, therefore the findings of the courts below regarding subletting is in accordance with the law and the evidence brought on record. It was further submitted that the petition er / tenant not only committed default in the payment of monthly rent but also made short payment in respect of the rent for the month of February, 2018 & March, 2018. It was further submitted that the courts below have also properly appraised the evidence in respect of the issue of impairment of the material value and utility of the demised premises and their findings on the said issue / point are well reasoned and is in accordance with the law, thus the same are not required to be interfered by this court . It was further submitted that it is settled principal of law that concurrent findings of facts of the courts below cannot be interfered with by this court in exercise of extra -ordinary constitutional jurisdiction. Lastly it was prayed that the petition b eing devoid of merit is not maintainable hence it may be dismissed.
11. In the first instance, I would like to deal with the point of default in payment of monthly rent. The case of respondent No.1 / landlord is that the petitioner / tenant has defaulte d in the payment of rent for the months of August, 2017 to January, 2018. It was also pleaded that the petitioner / tenant
C.P No.S-282 of 2025 Page 8 of 35
has made short payment while tendering the rent for the months of February, 2018 and March, 2018 and onward. According to respondent / landlord, the petitioner / tenant had been paying rent from August, 2017 to December, 2018 at the rate of Rs.233,322/- per month and has paid rent of Rs. 256,654/ - for the month of January, 2018 while paid Rs. 149,828/ - for the month of February, 2018 in stead of Rs.256,654/ - and Rs.203,240/ - for the month of March, 2018 instead of Rs.256,654/ -, thereby made short payment of Rs. 106,828/ - and Rs. 53,414/- respectively and total short payment was accumulated to the tune of Rs.160,243/-. In Para 15 of his af fidavit-in-evidence, authorized person of the respondent / landlord deposed that the opponent has made partial payment on 01.02.2018 towards the rent for the month of February, 2018 and accordingly, the opponent was intimated through notice regarding such short payment, but the remaining amount was not paid. Even during cross - examination, Respondent‟s authorized person remained consistent on his statement and his statement could not be shattered / shaken.
12. In this context, the stand taken by the petitioner / tenant is; that no fixed date was stipulated in the tenancy agreement for payment of monthly rent, therefore, rent for the months of February, 2018 and March, 2018 could be paid by 10 th of March, 2018 and 10 th of April, 2018 respectively, and as the tenant is entitled to avail a grace period of 60 days under Section 15(2)(ii) of SRPO, 1979 for deposit of rent after the rent has become due, as such the rent for the months of February, 2018 and March, 2018 could have been paid by petitioner / tenant by 10 th May, 2018 and 10 th June, 2018 respectively. In the circumstances, no default was committed by the petitioner in payment of rent for the months of February and March, 2018.
13. There is no cavil to such submis sion; however, perusal of Clause -3 of the Agreement of Lease dated 01 -05-2006 executed between the parties, reveals that rental of the demised premises (One shop and two offices) was fixed at the rate of Rs. 173,250/ - per month, which was payable in advanc e for 11 months. Besides, as per Clause 16(c) of the Agreement of Lease dated 01.05.2006, the tenant had agreed to pay the rent regularly to the landlord on the days and in the manner as agreed in Clause -3. It is also evident from the record that the petit ioner / tenant was consistently paying monthly rent in advance before 5 th of each calendar month from August 2017 to January 2018, however, he discontinued such practice from February, 2018.
C.P No.S-282 of 2025 Page 9 of 35
14. It is also significant to point out that apart from the alle gation of delay in payment of rent for the months prior to 08.03.2018, when the ejectment application was filed, the respondent / landlord also claims short payment of rent for the months of February and March, 2018 by the petitioner / tenant. According to the respondent / landlord, the petitioner paid Rs. 149,828/- and Rs. 203,240/- for the months of February, 2018 and March, 2018 respectively, although in the year 2017 the petitioner had been paying rent of Rs.233,322/ - per month. Although the autho rized person of the petitioner / tenant, in his cross-examination, denied the suggestion that the petitioner had not paid full rent of Rs.233,322/ - but had paid Rs.53,414/ - for the month of March, 2018 ; however, in the same breath, he categorically admitte d that he has not produced receipt of payment of full rent of Rs.233,322/ - for the month of March, 2018.
15. It seems that in his affidavit -in-evidence, so also during his cross - examination the authorized person of the applicant / respondent No.1 deposed in categorical terms that the opponent / tenant had committed default in payment of monthly rent and also made short payments, as stated above. In the circumstances, as per settled law, after such statement having been made on oath by the landlord, the b urden was shifted upon the shoulders of the petitioner / tenant to prove that he has committed no default and / or made any short payment towards monthly rent.
16. In this context, reference may be made to a decision given by a Full Bench of Honourable Su preme Court in the case of ALLAH DIN Vs. HABIB, reported in PLD 1982 SC 465, wherein it was held as under:
“It is no doubt correct to say that the initial burden of proof lies upon the landlord to establish that the tenant has not paid or tendered rent due by him, as required by section 13 (2) (i) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, but it must be appreciated that non -payment of rent is a negative fact, therefore, if the landlord appears in Court and states on oath that he has not receiv ed the rent for a certain period, it would be sufficient to discharge the burden that lies under the law upon him and the onus will then shift to the tenant to prove affirmatively that he had paid or tendered the rent for the period in question.”
17. Reliance, in this connection, can also be placed upon the case of Mrs. Asma Makhdoom Vs. Mrs.Yasmeen Azam (2018 MLD 976).
C.P No.S-282 of 2025 Page 10 of 35
18. However, perusal of the record shows that the opponent / tenant, in response to the allegation of default made on oath by the respon dent / landlord, in para 6 of the written statement made a general and vague statement that he always used to pay the rent in time without any default and delay . Similarly, in para 7 of the written statement, he stated that he always paid the rent in time and never committed any default.
19. In this view of the mater, it is apparent that the petitioner / tenant miserably failed to fulfill his obligation to prove that he has not committed any default in payment of rent, nor made any short payment towards monthly rent and has paid full rent for the months of February and March, 2018.
20. A plea was also raised on behalf of the petitioner / tenant that the Rent Controller, in excess of his jurisdiction, took into consideration the default / delay in payment of monthly rent for the months of May, June and July, 2020 allegedly occurred during proceedings of rent case, although there was no such pleading, nor was there any such prayer in the ejectment application.
21. The stand taken on behalf of the petitioner…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.