Islamabad: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.