' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---This is an appeal through leave of this Court granted on 19-12- 2008.
2. Claiming to be the landlord of the premises in question, Imran Ahmed petitioner filed an application under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 seeking ejectment of the respondent who, according to the petitioner, was a tenant in the said property. The respondent defended the said application, inter alia, by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
After taking the requisite steps, the Rent Controller at Karachi ordered the respondent to deposit the arrears of un-paid rent and also to pay the future monthly rent on 10th of every succeeding calendar month. This order of the Rent Controller dated 15-5-2008 was questioned before the Sindh High Court through Constitutional Petition No,S-271 of 2008 which petition was allowed by a learned Judge in Chambers through a judgment dated 10-11-2008. The landlord-petitioner approached this Court impugning the said judgment of the High Court of Sindh through Civil Petition No,486-K of 2008 which as has been mentioned above, was allowed through an order dated 19-12-2008. Hence this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length.
4. The case of. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent is that an agreement for sale of the said premises had been executed in his favour that he had already filed a suit seeking specific performance of the said contract and that in the absence of a final verdict on the said suit, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to direct him to deposit the rent as above mentioned.
5. It is a principle too well established by now that a sale agreement did not itself create any interest or even a charge on the property in dispute; that un-like the law in England, the law in Pakistan did not recognize any distinction between the legal and equitable estates; that a sale agreement did not confer any title on the person in whose favour such an agreement was executed and in fact it only granted him the right to sue for such a title and further that such an agreement did not affect the rights of any third party involved in the matter. It may be added that till such time that a person suing for ownership of a property obtains a decree for specific performance in his favour, such a person cannot be heard to deny the title of the landlord or to deprive the landlord of any benefits accruing to him or arising out of the property which is the subject-matter of the litigation. Postponing the ejectment proceedings to await the final outcome of a suit for specific performance would be causing serious prejudice to a landlord and such a practice, if approved by this Court, would only give a licence to un-scrupulous tenants to defeat the interests of the landlords who may be filing suits for specific performance only to delay the inevitable and to throw spanners in the wheels of law and justice.
6. In this view of the matter, we do not find it possible for us to sanctify the impugned judgment of the Sindh High Court. Consequently this appeal is allowed as a result whereof the impugned judgment of the Sindh High Court dated 10-11-2008 passsed in Constitutional Petition No,S-271 of 2008 is set aside and as a further consequence whereof the above mentioned order of the Rent Controller dated 15-5-2008 is restored. The costs of this appeal shall be borne by respondent No.1.