Malik M Habib

BEFORE THE COURT OF III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & RENT CONTROLLER, KARACHI EAST. Rent Case No. 38 of 2023 In re: Jawed versus M/s Wah Brands (Pvt.) Ltd & another. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE SINDH RENTED PREMISES ORDINANCE, 1979. WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE OPPONENT NO.1 Respectfully Sheweth: PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS AND OBJECTIONS. 1. That the instant application has been filed by the Applicant with ulterior motives in order to mislead this Honorable Court, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed, at the very out-set. By way of filing the instant application, the Applicant has concealed the true and material facts of the subject case in order to seek the forceful and/or wrongful eviction of the Opponent No. 1 who has otherwise ensured to fulfill all of its obligations arising under the Tenancy Agreement dated- (the “Tenancy Agreement”). 2. That M/s Wah Brands (Pvt.) Ltd./Opponent No. 1 entered into the Tenancy Agreement with the previous owner, namely, Mr. Muhammad Tahir Aziz (the “Previous Owner”) for the possession of the Shop No. 3, Shazco Apartment, Block 4, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi (the “Demised Premises”) for a period of ten (10) years commencing from- till- (the “Term”) against the rental amount of Rs, 25,000/- payable on the 10th of each month. (Copy of the Tenancy Agreement is attached herewith as “Annexure A”) [ 3. That pursuant to the execution of the Tenancy Agreement, the Opponent No.1 began performing its duties and obligations arising under the same. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that the not only did the Opponent No. 1 ensure the compliance of all terms and conditions of the Tenancy Agreement but also maintained the Demised Property in an excellent condition. Moreso, the Opponent No. 1 never defaulted in paying the rental amount to the Previous Owner and the same was always paid in an efficient and timely manner. 4. That subsequently, the Demised Premises was allegedly sold by the Previous Owner to the present Applicant in March 2022, however, such change of ownership was never brought to the knowledge of the Opponent No. 1 who continued paying the rental amount to the Previous Owner. In this regard, it is pertinent to submit that the foregoing change of ownership was concealed by the Applicant from the Opponent No.1 in order to fulfill its own ulterior and nefarious motives and such change in ownership was kept hidden from the Opponent No.1 for several months. It was only in June 2022 when the Opponent No. 1 was made aware of such change in ownership vide legal notice dated- wherein, inter alia, various other false, frivolous and vexatious allegations were also levelled against the Opponent No. 1. 5. That the legal notice dated- was absolutely baseless and without any merit since it was alleged within the same that the Applicant had visited the Demised Premises and had intimated the employees of the Opponent No. 1 of the change in ownership. It may be noted that such submission is far from reality as no visit was ever made by the Applicant and the Opponent No. 1 remained completely unaware vis-à-vis the change in ownership of the Demised Premises. No notice of sale of the Demised Premises was ever sent to the Opponent No, 1 either by the Applicant or by the Previous Owner. As such, it was the legal notice itself that was the first intimation regarding the change of ownership sent to the Opponent No. 1. 6. That additionally, another false and frivolous allegation in relation to the execution of another tenancy agreement in respect of the Demised Premises between the Previous Owner and some person, namely, Muhammad Asad was levelled against the Opponent No.1. However, the Opponent No.1 is completely unaware of the execution of any subsequent tenancy agreement that has been executed in respect of the Demised Premises and cannot assume any liability and/or responsibility arising therefrom. In this context, since the Applicant has been unable to bring on record any substantial evidence linking the Opponent No. 1 with the execution of a subsequent tenancy agreement, it is evident that such allegation is completely baseless and has been fabricated maliciously only to prejudice the interests of the Opponent No.1. 7. That in pursuance thereof, the Applicant vide letter dated- was duly intimated that it was not entitled to claim the rental amount from the Opponent No. 1 for such time period wherein it had remained unaware of the change in ownership of the Demised Premises and had been paying the rental amount to the Previous Owner. In addition to the foregoing, it was also highlighted that the Applicant was bound by the terms and conditions of the Tenancy Agreement, more particularly, Clause13 in terms of the foregoing provision “Mr. Muhammad Tahir Aziz, S/o of Mr. Sheikh Qutibuddin Aziz, Muslim, adult, Resident of House# C-2 Block 3 13- D Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi,, holding CNIC No-, hereinafter referred to as the ‘LANDLORD’ (which means and include his heirs, executors, administrators and/or assigns) of the One Part;”. 8. That subsequently, the Opponent No. 1 began depositing the monthly rental amount to the Applicant with regards to the Demised Premises in terms of Section 10(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (the “Ordinance”). In this regard, it may be highlighted that communication also ensued between the Applicant and the Opponent No. 1 vis-à-vis the settlement of the subject dispute and the execution of a new tenancy agreement, however, to the utter shock and disbelief of the Opponent No. 1 the Applicant disregarded all such communications and/or correspondences and has now proceeded to file the instant application. 9. That without prejudice to the afore-stated facts, it is to be noted that the Applicant is bound by the terms and conditions of the Tenancy Agreement including but not limited to Clause 13 whereunder the right of termination has only been granted to the Opponent No.1. In view thereof, the entire proceedings have been initiated against the Opponent No.1 in an illegal and unlawful manner to forcefully evict it from the Demised Premises. 10. That even otherwise and without prejudice to the foregoing, the primary requirement and condition precedent for invoking the provisions of Section 15 of the Ordinance is that the Landlord must be absolutely honest in his approach and intention and the same must be corroborated and/or substantiated by “irreversible evidence” and “surrounding circumstances”. With regards to the present case, it is evident that the Applicant has miserably failed to bring any cogent documentary evidence on record to establish the fact that the Demised Premises is required to be used for his own personal bonafide use for carrying out any business. In the absence of any such evidence which manifests an honest intention and in the presence of such conclusive facts which reflect the ill intentions of the Applicant, the instant application is liable to be dismissed. 11. That it is evident that the instant application is absolutely frivolous and vexatious, hence, this Learned Court may graciously be pleased to dismiss the same and may direct the Applicant to provide compensation to the Opponent No. 1 in terms of Section 17 of the Ordinance. REPLY ON MERITS Without any prejudice to the preliminary objections and submissions, it is submitted that unless specifically admitted, the contents of the application are denied in their entirety. However, where it is deemed necessary, reply to the paragraphs are given for record and consideration of this Learned Court. 1. That the contents of Paragraph No. 1 are denied. 2. That the contents of Paragraph No. 2 are vehemently denied as being false, frivolous and against the true facts of the subject case. As reiterated earlier, the Opponent No. 1 only entered into the Tenancy Agreement with the Previous Owner and remains completely unaware whether any subsequent tenancy/rent agreement was entered into between the Previous Owner and any third party. In view thereof, the Opponent No. 1 cannot assume any liability and/or responsibility of the actions of third parties vis-à-vis the Demised Premises. 3. That the contents of Paragraph No. 3 are only specifically admitted to the extent of the execution of the Tenancy Agreement between the Opponent No. 1 and the Previous Owner whereby the Demised Premises was rented to the Opponent No.1 at the monthly rental amount of Rs, 25, 000/-. The remaining contents of Paragraph 3 are vehemently denied as being false and frivolous. 4. That the contents of Paragraph No. 4 are denied as being false and incorrect. The Opponent No. 1 has been regularly depositing the monthly rental amount with respect to the Demised Premises to the Previous Owners till the intimation of change in ownership vide legal notice dated-. 5. That the contents of Paragraph No. 5 are denied as being completely false and misleading. The alleged visit was never made by the Applicant who was even otherwise bound to intimate the Opponent No. 1 of the change in ownership in terms of Section 18 of the Ordinance as soon as the Demised Property was allegedly purchased by him. 6. That the contents of Paragraph No. 6 are denied as being completely incorrect. The letter dated- was duly sent to the Applicant wherein comprehensive submissions were made by the Opponent No. 1. 7. That the contents of Paragraph No. 7 are being vehemently denied as incorrect and misleading. The contents of the preliminary objections and submissions above are reiterated. The Opponent No. 1 has submitted the rental amount in terms of Section 10(3) of the Ordinance; however, the Applicant has itself deliberately and intentionally refused to accept the same in order to initiate the instant vexatious proceedings against the Opponent No.1. 8. That the contents of Paragraph Np. 8 are vehemently denied as the Applicant has failed to dispense with the requirements of Section 15 of the Ordinance. The contents of Paragraph 10 of the preliminary submissions and objections are reiterated. 9. That the contents of Paragraph No. 9 need no reply. 10. That the contents of Paragraph No. 10 need no reply. PRAYER In view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Learned Court may graciously be pleased to dismiss the instant application and additionally also direct the Applicant to provide compensation to the Opponent No. 1 in terms of Section 17 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.