1969 PLP 435 (SCMR)

Date of hearing : 23rd May 1969. ABDUS SATTAR, J. ‑This order will dispose of Civil 'Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. K‑35 and K‑36 of .1969. The respondent filed applications for ejectment of the petitioners from same shops on the ground of default in payment of rent and conversion of the shops into residential quarters ;alleging that they became statutory tenants under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 4958. The Rent Controller accepted the applications and directed eviction ,of the petitioners from the shops in question. The petitioners appealed against these orders and the learned Additional District Judge, Karachi, set aside the orders of the Rent Controller and remanded the cases to the Rent Controller. The relevant portions of the orders, which, are more or less in identical terms, read as follows :‑ "I would therefore frame the under‑mentioned issue for ,determination by .the learned Rent Controller. Whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain the application in view of the provision of section 30, sub section 3 (i) and (ii) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation. and Rehabilitation) Act? I accordingly set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller, ordering ejectment of the opponenta‑ppellant and. remand the case for evidence (if any) and finding on the issue framed above and to issues 2 and 4 in the light of further evidence adduced and arguments advanced by the parties." After remand the Rent Controller re‑affirmed his previous decision by his orders dated the 10th April 1968. The petitioners, thereafter, filed appeals against the said orders but they were dismissed. Second Appeals filed in the High Court were also dismissed in limine: It will be seen that the Rent Controller, after remand, came to a definite finding that notices under section 30 of the Act were served on the petitioners. He also found that they, in: spite of the notices, failed to pay the rents due from them. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as rent in excess of the assessed rent was demanded, the petitioners could not clear the dues of the land lady. The rents were demanded according to the Municipal assessment and there was no reason, for the tenants not to pay the same at that rate. The fact that they had preferred appeals against the assessments made by the Municipality cannot be a ground for not paying the rents. It has been rightly observed by the learned Judge of the High Court that the tenants should have paid at that rate and any excess. payment could be adjusted with future rents. The learned counsel has then argued that the Rent Controller did not take into account the further evidence adduced after remand in deciding issues Nos. 2 and

4. These issues raised the questions whether the petitioners had committed default within. the meaning of section 13 of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction: Ordinance, and to what relief, if any, was the respondent entitled. It has been rightly pointed out by the Rent Controller that the additional evidence adduced by the petitioners did not improve their case with regard to these issues. The conduct of the petitioners clearly indicated, as has been rightly held by the Courts below, that they never wanted to pay the rents to the land lady. The learned counsel in support of his contention that as the petitioners had challenged the assessments made by the Municipality they were justified in not tendering rents at the admitted rates even, has placed reliance on the decision reported: as Mst. Sardar Begum v. Gulfaraz Khan (P L D 1967 Pesh. 176:). The decision does lend some support to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners but we are unable to accept the same. In our view the respondent was entitled to demand rent at the rates assessed by the Municipality and the fact that appeals against these assessments had been preferred by the petitioners dial not absolve them from paying rents at the assessed rate. The learned counsel has lastly contended that in section 30 of the Act the words "latest assessments" mean the assessments prevailing at the time of the transfer of the property or when the first notice was sent by the land‑lord to the tenant. This conten tion also cannot be accepted. The section clearly indicates that a transferee is entitled to charge rent on the basis of the latest assessment carried out by the Municipality or local authority. The petitions have no merits and are, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.