1. ' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The facts of the case as given in the judgment of the learned Judge in the High Court are that, the respondent sought ejectment of the petitioner, who was the former's tenant in the property in dispute at a monthly rent of Rs,3,500, but during the pendency of the cases, the parties entered into a new tenancy agreement dated 31-12-1986, whereby the rate of rent was enhanced from Rs,3,500 per month to Rs,4,250, with effect from 1-1-1.987. Such rent was payable in advance before the 5th of each calendar month. Upon signing of the said agreement, the proceedings pendings before the Rent Controller were withdrawn by the respondent. However, subsequently, the petitioner disputed the validity of the said agreement, resulting in institution of fresh action by the respondent before the Rent Controller. In the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner although, execution of the agreement by the parties was not disputed, but the petitioner questioned its validity on the ground that such agreement had not been executed in consonance with the provisions of section 5 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The said section provides as under:- "5. Agreement between landlord and tenant.- -(1) The agreement by which a landlord lets out any premises to a tenant shall be in writing and if such agreement is not compulsorily registerable under any law for the time being in force, it shall be attested by, signed by, and sealed with the seal of the Controller within whose jurisdiction the premises is situate or, any Civil Judge or First Class Magistrate.
(2) Where any agreement by which a landlord lets out any premises to a tenant is compulsorily registerable under any law for the time being in force, a certified copy of the registered deed and where the agreement is not so registerable, the original deed duly attested under subsection (1), shall be produced and accepted in proof of the relationship of the landlord and tenant: ' Provided that nothing in this section shall affect any agreement between the landlord and tenant immediately before coming into force of this Ordinance."
2. ' However, the Rent Controller was not impressed as refusal by the petitioner to pay the rent at the enhanced rate was considered as default and, thus, the petitioner was directed to vacate the demised premises within thirty days from passing of the eviction order.
3. ' The appeal filed by the petitioner before the High Court also met the same fate, and hence the petition for leave to appeal in this Court.
4. ' Mr. Rehanul Hassan Farooqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the rent agreement, dated 31-12-1986, admittedly not having been attested and signed by the parties in consonance with the provisions of section 5 of the Rent Ordinance, was an invalid document and hence the petitioner was not obliged under the law to abide by its terms. Consequently, according to the learned counsel, even if the petitioner continued to pay rent to the respondent at the original rate and not at the enhanced rate, as subsequently agreed between the parties, the same would not constitute default.
5. ' So far as the provisions of section 5 of the Rent Ordinance are concerned, no doubt, the said section enjoins that a tenancy agreement shall be in writing and if such agreement is not compulsorily registerable under any law for the time being in force, it shall also be attested and signed and sealed with the seal of the Controller, as provided in subsection (1) of the said section.
6. Although, the provisions of the Rent Ordinance do not indicate further as to what will be the consequences in case of non-compliance of the said provisions, nevertheless the legislative intent clearly appears to be that the said provisions be followed. In Hakim Ali v. Muhammad Salim (1992 SCM R 46), the effect of non-compliance with the provisions of section 5 was examined by this Court and it was held that, in case existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not in dispute, the tenancy would be governed only by the provisions of the Rent Ordinance. It was further held that the object behind section 5 only seems to be to avoid any controversy as to the existence of such relationship between the parties and to furnish proof in respect thereof and the terms and conditions on which the premises are let out to the tenant.
7. However, in Muhammad Rafique v. Messrs Habib Bank Limited (1994 SCM R 1012), it was observed that denial of tenancy merely on a technical ground of absence of a written agreement as required by section 5 cannot serve the cause of justice or deprive a tenant of his tenancy rights.
8. Although, in the earlier judgment it was observed that in case a tenancy agreement is not executed in the manner provided in section 5 of the Rent Ordinance, the terms and conditions contained therein would be invalid in case the same are found to be inconsistent with any provision in the Ordinance, but that in no way can lead to an inference that in such case all the provisions contained in a tenancy agreement would be rendered invalid or void. If such was the intent, the same would have been indicated more 'explicitly in the Rent Ordinance. If what the parties agreed can be clearly spelt out and the provision in the agreement sought to be enforced is also not in conflict with the statute, the mere fact that the agreement was not executed in the manner as required by section 5 cannot render such agreement invalid. Provisions of a statute which do not provide for consequences which may follow upon their non-compliance have been generally held to be directory and such strict consequences, therefore, cannot flow from their non- compliance. In the present case, existence of fresh agreement, whereby the rate of rent was enhanced by the parties, is neither in dispute nor the said provision in the agreement is claimed to be inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Rent Ordinance. Consequently, even if the said agreement was not executed in the manner as provided by section 5 of the Rent Ordinance, the same was still valid and operative between the parties. Consequently, any failure on the part the petitioner to pay enhanced rent to the respondent would render the former liable for ejectment from the demised premises on the ground of default. Under the circumstances, the order of the learned Judge in the High Court is not open to exception.
9. ' In the result, the petition is dismissed and leave is refused.