Mst. Shaista Hussain v. Farzana Naheed and others

Title and Citation of the Case:

Mst. Shaista Hussain v. Farzana Naheed and others

2026 SCMR 208

Court

Supreme Court of Pakistan

Date of Judgment

11 September 2025

Judge’s Present

Yahya Afridi CJ, Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb

Parties

Petitioner: Mst. Shaista Hussain

Respondents: Farzana Naheed and others

Background and Facts

The trouble had arisen over an eviction petition against a house in Rawalpindi. The petitioner claimed ownership based on a registered sale deed and agreements to sell and a previous civil decree awarding her proprietary rights. Based on these documents, she contended that the first respondent had entered into an oral tenancy agreement but later failed to pay the agreed monthly rent, thus bringing proceedings for eviction under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009.

The Respondent denied all the material allegations on the issue of tenancy. She claimed that “no landlord/tenant relationship ever existed” between herself and the parties and that she “did not occupy the premises as tenant nor was there any lease arrangement oral or written.

The Rent Controller rejected the petitioner’s petition for eviction as he found that the petitioner failed to prove that a tenancy existed, which forms the basis for all proceedings under the Act. The revisional court as well as the Lahore High Court confirmed this. The petitioner then applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in the present case did not address the challenge of the civil decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the proceedings were pending, but confined itself only to determine whether a legally recognizable tenancy had been established and thus the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 had been invoked.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether despite the absence of a written tenancy agreement the petitioner had established the existence of a landlord–tenant relationship.
2. Whether proof of ownership alone entitled the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under Section 15 of the Punjab Rented Premises ACT 2009.
3. Whether the Rent Controller possessed jurisdiction where the alleged tenancy was expressly denied and remained unsupported by reliable evidence.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner Contentions:

The petitioner contended that she had done the registration of a sale deed and obtained a civil court decree establishing her ownership of the impugned property. It was pointed out that the Pakistani law permits oral tenancy agreements and as the Respondent had failed to pay the rent, the Petitioner may have a case for eviction under Section 15 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. In addition, Counsel argued that the lower court had deemphasized the lack of documentary proof of tenancy and ignored the connotation of the petitioner’s ownership documents.

Respondents Contentions:

The respondents argued that the eviction notice was improperly issued as there was no tenancy to be terminated. Counsel pointed out that the petitioner had not produced a written lease agreement, rent receipts, witnesses to the rent paid or any other independent evidence that could establish the tenancy. It was therefore contended that the Rent Controller could not exercise his jurisdiction as the relationship of landlord and tenant had not been created.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court rejected the petition for leave to appeal and upheld the concurrent decision of the forums below. Once again, the Court emphasized that the powers of the Rent Controller are special and limited and that it comes in to play only after a satisfactory establishment of the landlord-tenant relation.

The Court noted that under paragraph 2 of the definition of the word “tenant” in the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, means a person who occupies premises in accordance with an agreement, whether express or implied, and is obliged to pay rent. In considering the statutory right of eviction under Section 15, it is therefore clear that the existence of the relationship needs to be established in a positive manner. While the Act acknowledges that oral tenancy agreements may exist, the Court pointed out that they must be supported by credible and convincing evidence.

In the present case, Petitioner did not meet this burden of proof. No rent receipts, tenancy papers or independent witnesses or previous notices demanding the rent were produced. Further, it is not in evidence that the petitioner ever claimed rent, and the admissions made during the cross-examination further undermined the petitioner’s claim.

The Court also determined that even if the title was well-documented, it did not in itself constitute or establish a landlord–tenant relationship. Proprietary titles are different to tenancy and is based on different legal principles. No evidence was placed on record to prove the petitioner was a tenant and the necessary condition for the jurisdiction of Rent Controller was not satisfied. The Supreme Court did not interfere as it found no illegality, perversity or misreading of evidence by the courts below.

Ratio Decidendi

For the Rent Controller under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, especially with regards to eviction under Section 15, the role of the landowner is a precondition, which requires establishing a legal landlord-tenant relationship. There is no right to seek eviction under special statutory mechanism without ownership of the property. Tenancy is to be proved by the party claiming the jurisdiction of Rent Controller.

Commentary and Significance

The judgment clearly differentiates between the cases of ownership and tenancy. The Supreme Court reiterated that rent proceedings are not designed to be an alternative forum to settle title disputes. Rather, the powers of the rent authorities are limited to scenarios where there is first a landlord–tenant relationship established.

The ruling is a reaffirmation of the basic rule that jurisdiction cannot be assumed by establishing ownership. The contractual relationship that provides the Rent Controller’s authority has to be established by the claimant himself. The decision bolsters protection against the abuse of the summary eviction proceedings and reinforces the difference between civil courts and the specialized rent tribunals.

It is also noteworthy that the judgment is a reminder that there are jurisdictional facts which must be established before a special statutory forum can exercise its powers. The strategy maintains the small jurisdiction of Rent Controllers and avoids the possibility of the owners and occupants of rented premises turning an ownership matter into a rent lawsuit, without meeting the statutory prerequisites as set in the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009.

Besides, the judgment strengthens the principle of evidence as laid down in Article 117 and 119 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, which is that the burden of providing evidence of a fact lies upon the party asserting it. The Supreme Court has placed great emphasis on establishing independent proof of tenancy to ensure procedural fairness, safeguard against arbitrary eviction by the landlords and offer guidance to future landlord tenant disputes in Pakistan.