2008 PLP 24 (YLR)

RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, I.

Two Courts below passed the ejectment order against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent in the ejectment application filed by the landlady Mrs. Samar Afroze. The petitioner has challenged the concurrent findings of two Courts below. I have heard the parties' advocate and perused the record of this case very carefully. It is an admitted position that previously the case premises was owned by one Akhlaq Hussain, who gifted the property to the respondent in the month of January, 1997. The respondent served notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The previous landlord also sent intimation to the petitioner about the transfer of the property. Both the notices were received by the petitioner. The petitioner was previously depositing the rent in Court in Misc. Rent Case No.19/1997 filed in the name of previous owner upto February, 1997 and then he started depositing rent in Misc. Rent Case No.401/1997, which was filed against the previous landlord and the respondent in their joint names. Learned Rent Controller as well as Appellate Court formed the opinion that the deposit of rent in the joint names of previous owner and the petitioner was not a valid tender, as such, they passed the ejectment orders. The learned advocate for the petitioner has stated that the rent was deposited in the above mentioned petitions, as such, it is a technical default, therefore, it can be condoned. After the service of notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the tenant is required to pay the rent within 30 days to the new landlord, as such, the tender of rent has to be made to the new landlord and not to the old landlord. In the present case, the deposit of rent in MRC No.19/1997 in the name of previous owner is not a valid tender to the new landlord after receipt of notice under section 18 of the Ordinance. No doubt, MRC No.401/1997 was filed in the joint names of the respondent and the old landlord, but this can also not be termed as a valid tender to the new landlord. It is clear from the record that the petitioner in spite of knowledge and receipt of notices deliberately did not tender the rent to the new owner/landlord. The act of depositing of rent in the joint names of the petitioner and previous owner shows that the petitioner intended that the respondent should not withdraw the tent, as in such type of application full rent cannot be withdrawn by one person, as such, the petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent. After considering the material available on the record. I am of the considered view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders of two Courts below. Therefore, they do not require any interference. The petition is dismissed. H.B.T./A-113/K Petition dismissed.