The Supreme Court has upheld the eviction of five companies in Karachi, ruling that failure to pay advance rent as agreed and alterations that risk damaging a rented building’s value or utility can constitute grounds for eviction.
A two-member bench comprising Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui dismissed the companies’ petitions challenging Sindh High Court judgments, holding that there was no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
The petitioners included Universal Express (Pvt) Ltd, Al-Kiswa (Pvt) Ltd, Top Line Travels (Pvt) Ltd, Fazal-e-Rabbi (Pvt) Ltd and Executive Aviation (Pvt) Ltd. They had challenged rulings in favour of Karachi Properties Investment Company (Pvt) Ltd and others.
In a judgment authored by Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, the court held that rent must be paid within the period prescribed under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Where the parties have agreed on advance payment, a tenant cannot claim additional time merely because no specific payment date was fixed.
The court observed that the pendency of eviction proceedings does not absolve a tenant of the obligation to pay rent.
Rent falling due during the proceedings must also be paid in accordance with the law, and subsequent defaults may constitute additional grounds for eviction if the legal requirements are met.
The judgment further held that installing industrial generators, making holes in the building structure for air-conditioning, constructing stairs without permission and undertaking other alterations may justify eviction if they risk affecting the property’s material value or utility.
The court clarified that expert testimony from an architect or engineer is not mandatory in every case to establish such a risk. The issue may be determined on the basis of relevant evidence and circumstances, although not every alteration can automatically be treated as damage.
The bench found that the rent controller, appellate court and Sindh High Court had already examined the evidence concerning rent payments, outstanding dues and alterations to the premises. The petitioners failed to establish any legal error or misreading of evidence warranting the Supreme Court’s interference.
With the dismissal of all five petitions, the High Court’s eviction orders remain intact. The companies had been directed to vacate the premises within 45 days, subject to payment of rent for the relevant period.
Separately, the Supreme Court has ruled that government employees must be given a fair opportunity of hearing before their seniority is changed, even if the original seniority determination was contrary to the relevant service rules.
A three-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan issued the judgment while deciding review petitions filed by Sindh Police sub-inspectors.
The court observed that revising the petitioners’ seniority list in 2020 without hearing them violated the principles of natural justice and due process guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution.
The petitioners maintained that they had been assigned their proper positions in the seniority list issued on April 28, 2015, but were placed below their colleagues when the list was revised on November 18, 2020, without issuing show-cause notices or providing an opportunity to present their case.
The court held that seniority was an important service right linked to employees’ career progression. Even if the original seniority list was inconsistent with service rules, the affected employees had to be heard before any adverse change.
The Supreme Court recalled its order of April 4, 2024, restored the relevant civil petitions, converted them into appeals and partly allowed them. It also set aside the Sindh Service Tribunal’s decision to the extent of the first group of petitioners.
The court directed the Sindh Police Department to hear the affected officers, examine their objections and issue a reasoned decision in accordance with the law. If their objections were found valid and the revision unlawful, a fresh seniority list would be issued within two months of receipt of the judgment.
The court also ordered that the existing position under the November 18, 2020, seniority list be maintained for the first group of petitioners in the meantime.
SC sets aside ex parte property judgment, remands case for fresh decision: The Supreme Court has ruled that no ex parte judgment can be passed against a party without proper service of notice in accordance with law and an effective opportunity of hearing.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan set aside the Lahore High Court’s judgment and the trial court’s ex parte proceedings in a case concerning the specific performance of a property sale agreement, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.
In its detailed written judgment, the court observed that substituted service of notice could only be ordered after genuine efforts to serve the party through ordinary means had been made and the court was satisfied that ordinary service was not possible or the party was deliberately avoiding service.
The court noted that, during the earlier proceedings, the counsel had declined to appear due to lack of instructions from his clients.
This could not be treated as valid service of notice, particularly when the judicial record contained no evidence that the parties had been served in accordance with law.
It held that failure to comply with the legal requirements for service of notice was not a mere technical irregularity but a matter concerning the fundamental right to a fair hearing. Every party must have an effective opportunity to present its case, produce evidence and defend its position.
According to the case record, Ghulam Mujtaba and Ghulam Murtaza entered into a property sale agreement on November 30, 2004, for a total consideration of Rs7.3125 million. The buyer filed a suit for specific performance, claiming to have paid Rs2.5 million, but alleging that the seller had failed to execute the sale deed.
After the case was remanded for rehearing, the trial court passed an ex parte judgment on November 2, 2016, in the absence of the defendants.
The Lahore High Court’s Multan Bench dismissed the relevant petition on February 20, 2023, prompting the challenge before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, the ex parte decision and the related orders, directing the trial court to decide the case afresh after ensuring proper service of notice and providing all parties an opportunity to submit written statements, produce evidence and present arguments.
The trial court was asked to make every effort to decide the matter within four months of the parties’ first appearance. The parties were directed to appear before the relevant district judge on October 26, 2026.
The court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute and that the trial court would decide the matter independently in light of the evidence and submissions of the parties.