1982 PLP 1982 (CLC)

This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207 and 208 of 1982, which involve same questions of the facts and law.

2. This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 whereby the petitioner wants this Court to declare the order dated 4th November, 1981 of the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The facts leading up to this petition in brief are that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed shop as a tenant under Jamil Ahmad Khan and others, respondents Nos. 3 to

7. The shop was purchased by Malik Riaz Ahmad and Malik Sajjad Ahmad, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein in an auction by the Registrar, Co‑operative Society, Multan, in execution of decree for the recovery of money. The auction was confirmed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on 25th March, 1972 and, as such, the petitioner became a tenant under the purchasers in auction, who moved an application for ejectment of tenant/petitioner before the Rent Controller, Multan. Jamil Ahmad Khan and others were impleaded as respondents in that petition on their own application. The petitioner refused to recognise respondents Nos. 1 rind 2 as his landlord. He took up the plea of non‑service of notice as contemplated by section 13‑A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). The Rent Controller framed the following issues :‑

(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties ? (2) Relief. The learned Rent Controller found that since a notice under section 13‑A of the Ordinance was not proved to have been issued by the new purchasers to the tenant/petitioner and in any case thirty days had not elapsed between the notice and the filing of the ejectment petition, therefore, there did not exist the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as a result of his finding he rejected the application of respondents 1 and 2 against the petitioner herein. Feeling aggrieved, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed‑appeal and the learned Additional District Judge reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on issue No. 1. set aside the judgment and remanded the case to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law keeping in view the observation made by him in the judgment. Hence this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel while supporting the judgment of the learned Rent Controller and criticising that of the learned Additional District Judge has argued : (1) that since no valid notice under section 13‑A of the Ordinance was given by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, to the petitioner/tenant the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. He urged that the purchasers failed to prove the writing of the alleged notice and its service upon the petitioner. The respondents did not produce postman or scriber of the notice. He relied upon 1980 S C M R 1979, 1980 C L C 73, N L R 1979 (Civil) 143 ? and PL D 1980 Pesh. 163 ; as such, the same had bona fide become doubtful. Reliance is placed on 1979 C L C 550 and 1980 C L C 320, and (2) that the learned Additional District Judge was not competent to remand the case back for trial and give direction to proceed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance.

4. I have considered the arguments and gone through the material placed before me and the case‑law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As for the first contention, I find that the application for ejectment has not been filed on the sole ground of default. Ejectment of the petitioner has also been sought on the ground of reconstruction of the shop. The contention of the learned counsel that since no notice under section 13‑A of the ordinance was given, the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist is without substance. To me, the notice under section 13‑.A of the Ordinance has nothing to do with the creation of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is simply a shield against ejectment of tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent and, as such, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on this contention are not relevant at all. The case law cited on section 13‑A of the Ordinance is not helpful to him on the issue of existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. It is well settled that on the purchase of the property under the occupation of a tenant from the original landlord‑ the relationship of landlord and tenant between the purchaser and the tenant stands automatically created but the landlord cannot eject the tenant for default unless he gives him a valid notice under section 13‑A of the Ordinance. So far as the second contention is concerned, for the reasons given above, the same is also without any force. As regards third contention, it also merits rejection inasmuch as the petition was on two grounds, i.e. default as well as reconstruction. The learned Additional District Judge being an appellate authority was competent to remand the case for further proceedings according to law to the light of his observations. There is nothing wrong with the direction and his observations.

5. The learned Additional District Judge while sitting as an authority of appeal was well within his authority to discuss the finding of the Rent Controller, to reverse the same and send back the case with the direction as given by him. I find that, in the instant case, the learned Additional District Judge has very correctly appreciated the legal aspect of a notice as contemplated by section 13‑A of the Ordinance. For all these reasons, I am inclined to dismiss this Petition in limine. M. Y, H. Petition dismissed.