| Case ID |
437287e6-0039-45e8-8523-acb68c82d8be |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Appeal No.55-K of 1980 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 05, 1989 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court upheld the discretion exercised by the Rent Controller in favor of the tenant, concluding that the default in rent payment was only for one month. The Court found that the security deposit of Rs.500, as stipulated in the tenancy agreement, could not be adjusted against future rent. The judgment highlighted that the deposit was meant to secure payment for utilities and could only be refunded once the premises were vacated and all dues were settled. The High Court's ruling was deemed correct in recognizing that there was no default, as the tenant had made efforts to pay the rent, and the tenancy had a long-standing history without prior complaints. The appeal was dismissed, allowing the parties to bear their own costs. |
| Summary |
In the case of Mst. SAEEDA KHATOON vs. MUHAMMAD AHMED LATIFI, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed pivotal issues regarding tenancy agreements and the adjustment of security deposits under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979). The Court examined the stipulations of the tenancy agreement which stated that a security deposit of Rs.500 could not be adjusted towards future rent payments. This decision emphasized the importance of adhering to contractual terms in tenancy agreements, especially concerning security deposits intended for utility charges. The ruling reinforced the principle that landlords cannot arbitrarily change the terms of agreements post-facto, particularly in cases where tenants have maintained a long-standing relationship without prior defaults. The final decision upheld the Rent Controller's discretion in favor of the tenant, highlighting the court's approach in balancing tenant rights with landlord interests in Pakistan's evolving legal landscape. Key legal principles surrounding tenant protections, the nature of security deposits, and the implications of default in rental agreements were thoroughly analyzed, setting a critical precedent for future cases in the realm of tenancy law. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
GHULAM MUJADDID,
NAIMUDDIN,
NASIM HASSAN SHAH
|
| Lawyers |
Rehmat Elahi,
M.A.1, Qarri,
Q.I. Abbas,
M.S. Ghauri
|
| Petitioners |
Mst. SAEEDA KHATOON
|
| Respondents |
MUHAMMAD AHMED LATIFI
|
| Citations |
1990 SLD 327,
1990 PLD 389
|
| Other Citations |
P L D 1988 Supreme Court 228,
P L D 1980 Supreme Court 298,
P L D 1985 Supreme Court 148
|
| Laws Involved |
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979),
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
|
| Sections |
15,
15(3)
|