Paying rent on time does not mean the landlord can never make you leave

Key points

• Section 15 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009 lists six grounds for eviction. Failing to pay or tender rent is only one of them.
• The first ground on the list: "the period of tenancy has expired".
• The Supreme Court in 2025 SCMR 1691: the landlord "is the best judge of his personal need and he is not under any legal obligation to act upon dictation of the tenant."
• A tenant who says he has bought the premises under an agreement to sell must first hand over possession, then fight his case. If he wins, he can enforce the decree.

The rule in one line

Rent paid on time protects you from one ground of eviction, not from all of them. When the agreed period ends, or the tenant breaks the agreement, misuses the place or sub-lets it without written consent, the landlord can go to the Rent Tribunal. In Sindh, the landlord's own genuine need for the premises is also a ground the Supreme Court applies.

The six grounds in Punjab

Section 15 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009 says a landlord may seek eviction of the tenant if: (a) the period of tenancy has expired; (b) the tenant has failed to pay or tender the rent within thirty days after the period stipulated in section 7; (c) the tenant has broken a term or condition of the tenancy agreement; (d) the tenant has violated an obligation under section 13; (e) the tenant has used the premises for a different purpose from the one it was let for; or (f) the tenant has sub-let the premises without the landlord's prior written consent.

Section 5 of the same Act says a landlord shall not let out premises except by a tenancy agreement, and the agreement is to be presented before the Rent Registrar.

What happened in this case

The case came from Karachi. The landlord sought the tenant's eviction under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The tenant said he had entered into an agreement with the vendor, had purchased the premises and had filed a suit for specific performance (paragraph 3).

The Sindh High Court at Karachi decided the rent appeal on 27 September 2024 against the tenant, and the tenant petitioned the Supreme Court (paragraph 1).

What the Supreme Court said

A bench of Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan decided the petition on 20 November 2024.

On the landlord's need, the Court said: "It is observed that it is the sole choice and prerogative of the landlord to choose the premises which better suits him as he is the best judge of his personal need and he is not under any legal obligation to act upon dictation of the tenant. Personal bona fide need has been accepted as sufficient reason to seek eviction of the tenant." (paragraph 2).

On the tenant's claim to have bought the place, it said a tenant who denies the landlord's ownership on the ground of an agreement to sell "is bound to first of all deliver the possession of the premises in question and then to contest his proprietary rights", and can enforce a decree if he wins (paragraph 3). Without evidence against the landlord's title, there is a strong presumption that the tenancy exists.

On a lease that has run out, it relied on its earlier ruling in PLD 2018 SC 81: after the tenancy period expires a tenant can hold over, but without the landlord's express consent to extend it he is "liable to be evicted" (paragraph 3).

Leave to appeal was refused and the petition dismissed (paragraph 4).

The same rule, three months earlier

In Mst. Mussarrat Shaheen v. Mst. Verbeena Khan Afroz, 2024 SCMR 1796 (8 August 2024), a tenant in Karachi said she had bought the flats in 2009 and filed a suit in 2020, after the landlady's eviction case. The Supreme Court held that "a tenant cannot maintain occupancy of rented premises merely because he/she has initiated a suit for declaration. In instances where the tenant asserts ownership of the property, the legally mandated procedure requires the tenant to vacate the premises, pursue the civil suit, and, upon a favorable judgment by the competent court, regain possession of the property." (paragraph 8). Leave was refused.

The case at a glance

Facts

Eviction proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The tenant claimed he had bought the premises under an agreement to sell and had filed a suit for specific performance. The Sindh High Court at Karachi decided the rent appeal against him on 27 September 2024.

The question

Whether the tenant could resist eviction on the strength of his claimed purchase, and whether the landlord's personal need was a sufficient ground.

What the Court held

The landlord is the best judge of his personal need, which is a sufficient reason to seek eviction. A tenant claiming to have bought the premises must first deliver possession and then pursue his suit. Leave refused.

Why

Settled precedent of the Supreme Court on personal bona fide need, on tenants who deny the landlord's title, and on tenants holding over after the tenancy period ends without the landlord's express consent.

Limits

This was a short order refusing leave. It does not say a landlord can evict without going to the Rent Controller or Tribunal, and it does not decide the tenant's claim to have bought the property; that is left to his civil suit. Personal need is a ground under the Sindh Ordinance; the Punjab Act 2009 lists its own six grounds. The order does not say whether the tenant had paid his rent.

In the Court’s words

“it is an established principle that if a tenant denies the proprietary rights of the landlord on the ground of any agreement to sell, then he is bound to first of all deliver the possession of the premises in question and then to contest his proprietary rights in the property and if ultimately he succeeds in getting relief from the Court of competent jurisdiction and decree is passed in his favour he can enforce the same according to law with all its consequences.”

2025 SCMR 1691, para 3

The law it relies on

What this does not mean

• It does not mean a landlord can throw a tenant out himself. Eviction goes through the Rent Controller or Rent Tribunal under the rent law.
• It does not mean paying rent does not matter. Not paying on time is itself a ground for eviction.
• It does not decide who owns the property when a tenant says he bought it. That is for the civil suit; the tenant simply has to hand over possession while he fights it.

Questions people ask

Sources

• Salahuddin Ahmed v. Khurram Sultan Abbasi, 2025 SCMR 1691 (Supreme Court of Pakistan, 20 November 2024), paras 1, 2, 3, 4
  Landlord is the best judge of his personal need; a tenant claiming purchase must deliver possession first; holding over after expiry makes a tenant liable to eviction; leave refused. verified against full text
• Mst. Mussarrat Shaheen v. Mst. Verbeena Khan Afroz, 2024 SCMR 1796 (Supreme Court of Pakistan, 8 August 2024), paras 8, 14
  A tenant who asserts ownership must vacate, pursue the civil suit and regain possession only if she wins; leave refused. verified against full text Supreme Court of Pakistan (judgment PDF)
• Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, s.15, s.5 text checked in FAI Statute Search Punjab Code

Every quote and section above is traced to the full judgment or statute text by an automatic check that runs on every update.

What the reel says