1986 PLP 729 (MLD)

This writ petition arises out of order dated 19‑2‑1980 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha whereby he dismissed petitioner's appeal against the order of his ejectment from the disputed premises passed on 30‑5‑1979 by the learned Rent Controller, Sargodha.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is in occupation of a room (Bethak) of House No. 8, S. 193, Block No. 11, Sargodha. This house was transferred to Muhammad Sharif respondent by the Settlement Authorities prior to the repeal of the Evacuee laws. The petitioner is transferee in possession of another portion of the aforesaid house. The parties had been litigating before the Settlement Authorities as well as before this Court and the Supreme Court for the transfer of the aforementioned house. This Court in its decision dated 2‑6‑1975 passed in Writ Petition No. 376‑R of 1971 observed that the petitioner was transferee of the upper floor which included gallery and the respondent was transferred portion of the property on the ground floor which‑ included ' Bethak' in possession of the petitioner. It was further observed that Muhammad Sharif respondent would not stop the petitioner' from using the water tap fixed in the Bethak and in his use. The case was, however, remitted to the learned Settlement Commissioner to give effect to the order, and apportion transfer price accordingly.

3. The respondent No.3 launched ejectment proceedings against the petitioner from the 'Bethak' on the ground that she had defaulted in payment of rent since April, 1973 and also that the same was required in good faith for his own use and occupation. The application was resisted. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied. It was asserted that the respondent was not transferee/owner of the property in dispute. The learned Rent Controller framed following issues:

(1) Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? O.P.P. (2) Whether a notice as required by section 30 of Act No. XXVIII of 1958 is necessary to be served in the present case, if so what is the effect of non‑service of such notice? O.P.R. The parties led evidence. The learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition, and decided issue No.1 against the petitioner holding that the room (Bethak) in dispute was transferred in favour of the respondent and by operation of law the petitioner become tenant under him. It was observed that the facility of using water tap installed in the room would be available to the petitioner. Under issue No. 2 it was held that after the repeal of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, no notice was necessary. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the aforesaid order in appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner's denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not contumacious so as to forfeit her right of tenancy. It was pleaded that the learned Rent Controller' as well as the lower appellate authority did not permit the petitioner to establish that no demand for payment of rent was made by Muhammad Sharif respondent in respect of the disputed premises as such there was no question of default committed by her. This petition was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. It was stated that the petitioner neither tendered nor deposited the rent for the premises in her use and that she denied. the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties despite this Court in order dated 2‑6‑1975 passed in M.P. No. 326‑R of 1971 finally settled the dispute between the parties in respect of the transfer of the disputed property.

5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have seen the documents on the file. The petitioner has not placed on the file the ejectment petition, written reply filed by the respondent and the evidence led by the parties. However, with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner some relevant portions of the aforementioned documents were read out through his brief. Admittedly the respondent was transferred the disputed property before the repeal of the Evacuee laws., After the transfer of the disputed property the petitioner became tenant under the respondent by operation of law. She neither deposited nor tendered rent of the disputed property to the respondent despite demand. She deliberately denied the transfer of property in dispute to the respondent and contumaciously denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as the lower appellate authority holding that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and directing her ejectment from the disputed property are subject to no exception.

6. There is no substance in this petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.Y.H???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.