P L D 1987 Karachi 685 (PLP)

3. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Bhutto, learned counsel for the appellant, had argued that as upto August, 1979 Din Muhammad had been collecting rent from the appellant, in spite of the two notices dated 18‑3‑1980 and 2‑4‑1980 received from the respondents, the appellant was not bound by law to pay or tender rent to the respondents and his tendering rent by two money orders to Din Muhammad and then deposit of rent in Misc. Rent case in the name of Din Muhammad were bona fide actions on the part of the appellant and it could not be held that the appellant was a defaulter for which he was liable to be ejected. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Hanif Mangi had submitted on behalf of the landlords that on the evidence it had been established that the appellant was a wilful defaulter. Following reported judgments were cited before me:‑

(i) Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Ilyas 1979 C L C 720 (ii) Noor Muhammad v. Iqbal Ahmed 1985 C L C 1007 (iii) Sarwar Abbas v. Hajrabai 1983 C L C 337 (iv) A.S.K. Samad v. A. Hussain 1983 C L C 2211 (v) Muhammad Ashraf v. Abdul Hamid 1982 S C M R 237 The first four decisions are by learned Single Judges of this High Court. I may, however, reproduce para 4 of the judgment of Supreme Court reported in 1982 S C M R 237 which reads as follows:‑ "According to the case put forward by the petitioner himself, his predecessor‑in‑interest had entered as a tenant when only allottees rights were conferred on Tahir Basharat. The transfer of same or similar rights was claimed by respondents 1 and 2 and a notice to that effect had been served, a copy of which was also sent to the transferee. Even if the petitioner had a doubt with regard to the competing claims of the two allottees, he could have ascertained it from the authorities sanctioning the transfer or made a deposit before the Rent Controller with his own reservations. He could not in good faith deposit the amount in the name of landlord about whom he was informed formally that he had ceased to have interest in the property thereby depriving the claimant landlord to prove his entitlement before the Rent Controller and get the rent deposited. Such a conduct on the part of the tenant has always been considered contumacious. Without being himself interested in title, the tenant looks upon himself to challenge the title of the transferee. On this view of the conduct of the petitioner, the decision of the controller and the appellate authority would appear to be amply justified and beyond, interference in the constitutional jurisdiction. "

4. In the facts of the case, the conduct of the appellant in not tendering the rent to the respondents and depositing the rent with the Rent Controller in the name of Din Muhammad cannot be termed as bona fide to absolve him of the responsibility of tendering rent to or depositing rent in the name of the respondents. This is so far the following reasons:‑

(a) Two notices dated 18‑3‑1980 and 2‑4‑1980 had been served upon the appellant intimating that the respondents were the owners/ landlords of the disputed premises and that rent had not been paid by the appellant since September, 1979. (b) Din Muhammad had refused to receive the rent from September, 1979. (c) Din Muhammad had refused to accept the money orders sent to him by the appellant in April and May, 1980. (d) No effort or attempt was made by Din Muhammad from September, 1979 onwards to collect rent from the appellant and the ejectment application was filed by the respondents on 27‑1‑1982. (e) Previous rent application No.15/80 had also been filed by the respondents against the appellant and two other persons (alleged sub‑leases) but the same was withdrawn by the respondents on 12‑4‑1981 by making the following statement:‑ "We the applicants do hereby withdraw above rent application as nek‑mards have settled our dispute. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, even if the respondents did not documents of their ownership for inspection by the appellant, the appellants must have realized that either the respondents were the owners /landlords of the premises in question or at least become doubtful as to whether Din Muhammad was still entitled to receive rent from the appellant. In such a situation, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in 1982 S C M R 237, the appellant should have made inquiries about the ownership of the respondents or deposited rent with the Rent Controller with reservations. The deposit of rent in the name of Din Muhammad with the Rent Controller by the appellant without reservations was, therefore, not made in good faith, It may be observed here that there is no dispute that respondents are the owners of the premises in question, and no rent was at all tendered to the respondents or deposited in their names.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs but the appellant has been granted time till 31‑12‑198, to vacate the premises subject to payment/deposit of rent. A.A./M‑237/K Appeal dismissed.