2000 PLP 1952 (SCMR)

WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.

The petitioner, initially, held the tenant-hold involved in these proceedings under M/s. Khatri Abdul Rahim & Brothers. However, per family settlement, dated 9-3-1993, the respondent became the landlord. Notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance was issued to the petitioner-tenant only on 19-9-1994 which was replied to on 6-10-1994, statedly, seeking a copy of the deed of family settlement and making some other averments therein. Meanwhile, according to the petitioner's counsel, there being a dispute as to the rate of rent, also encompassing water charges, wealth tax etc., the petitioner-tenant had started depositing rents before the Controller since January, 1991 and on the date of notice had already deposited such rent up to December, 1994. Be that as it may, the successor landlord proceeded to file an ejectment application for an alleged default on 24-10-1994, spelling out the period of default as commencing from 27-4-1992, that is to say during the period of the previous landlord. Upon recording of evidence the Controller ordered eviction and such was upheld in the F.R.A. taken to the High Court, giving rise to this leave petition. Evidently, the Controller as well as the High Court while congnizant of the continued deposit of rent by the tenant, were influenced by the fact that such had taken place in the name of the old landlord in. preference to the successor. However, several other implications appear to have been ignored, including precedents reflecting a liberal construction of section 16(2) of the 1979 Ordinance where, albeit devolution of property, non-contumacious deposits in M.R.Cs. continued, Refer: Hajran Begum v. Inayat-ur-Rehman, C. P. L. A. 211-K of 1999. We are inclined to grant leave in this case, inter alia, to consider the following:

"(i) Whether the advance deposit of rent prior to notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in the name of the previous landlord does not pre-empt a subsequent technical default on the premises that the transferee usually takes the property free of all claims and the deposit in favour of the transferor thus lawfully devolves on the transferee ? (ii) Whether factually and legally there could be any default on 24-10-1994 when the eviction case was filed in the face of the notice under section 18 having been sent only on 19-9-1994 and apparently a legitimate plea having been raised by the tenant per his reply, dated 6-10-1994 seeking his own satisfaction as to the actual transfer/devolution of the property by making available a copy of the family settlement? (iii) Whether there was a genuine dispute as to the rate of rent which continued up to the advent of the devolution on the respondent? If so its effect"? Q.M.H./M.A.K./A-85/S Leave granted.