KARACHI: SHC rejects PN body’s plea against tenant
By Our Reporter
KARACHI, Jan 15: A division bench of the Sindh High Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal of the Pakistan Navy Benevolent Association (PNBA) against Shell Pakistan in a case pertaining to tenancy of a petrol pump adjacent to the Fleet Club.
Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Ali Aslam Jaferi in their judgment, however, held that the dismissal of appeal would not prevent the appellants from seeking ejection of the respondents in accordance with the law.
The appeal stemmed from an order passed by a judge on on Feb 8, whereby interim relief sought in suit No.1749/2000 by the respondents was granted and the appellants directed to remove a tarpaulin wall and sailors posted at the pump run by the respondents.
The appellants had entered into a lease agreement, for the 3,168 square yards plot adjacent to the Navel Fleet Club, with the respondents for running a patrol pump.
The agreement was effective from Jan 1, 1987, to Dec 31, 1996, but could be extended twice for of 10 years each, under certain terms and conditions.
After completion of 10 years, the association expressed its unwillingness to renew the agreement while the respondents attempted to persuade them to do so.
After prolonged correspondence, the appellants, through a letter in March 2000, offered to enter into a fresh lease agreement for 10 years effective from 1.7.1997 at the monthly rent of Rs300,000 with 10 per cent increase after every three years. Earlier, the rent was Rs10,000 per month plus 10 per cent increase after every three years, according to the agreement dated Aug 12, 1990.
During this period, the respondents continued to remain in possession and kept depositing the rent according to the original agreement.
The offer was unacceptable to the respondents, who attempted to negotiate the matter and, according to the plaintiff, agreed to pay monthly Rs250,000, provided the appellants were willing to execute 20-years lease with effect from Jan 1, 2001. The negotiations broke down.
On Dec 27, 2000, however, the appellants with the assistance of Pakistan Navy personnel entered the premises, took possession of the record of the filling station and directed the respondents to stop operating the patrol pump. The respondents filed a suit on Dec 31, 2000.
Appellants’ counsel, Syed Tariq Ali, argued that lease for more than one year could only be given through a registered instrument and the said agreement was not registered.
H.A. Rehmani, the counsel for the respondents, contended that under the terms of the agreement, after completion of the first 10 years, it was to be extended on the same terms and conditions for 10 years with mutual consent and the question of exclusive willingness of navy and renegotiation of rent could arise after 20 years. He argued that the appellants continued to accept rent and failed to take any measure to eject the respondents till more than three years after expiry of the period indicated their willingness to renew the agreement.
The bench said it was mindful of the difficulties of a lessor who had to approach a court for ejection of a tenant whose legal right to remain in possession had ceased to exist in view of delay in disposal of such cases. “Indeed the situation calls for remedial action on the part of the legislature as well as sustained efforts to arrest the problem of delay in deciding cases.”
“This, however, cannot be treated as an excuse for defying the mandate of law through display of sheer force and no civilised system of administration of justice can condone such acts by allowing parties a premium over their own wrong,” the order said.
According to the order, the appellants could not furnish any justification for their action because according the plot belonged to Pakistan Navy and this fact had been admitted by the respondents.
“The appellants could conveniently eject the respondents through summary procedure stipulated in the Federal Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance 1965. It is not understood why the appellants failed to act in accordance with law and resorted to adoption of illegal measures,” it said.
The bench dismissed the appeal but made clear that “this will not prevent the appellants from seeking ejectment of the respondents in accordance with the law.”
