1989 PLP 877 (CLC)

U. Naimat Moulvi for Petitioner. Khalid Anwar and S. Hamid Hussain for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st January, 1989. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent No.l in respect of godown premises situated at No.2 West Wharf Road, No.3, Karachi. The respondent No.l filed an application for ejectment in the Court of XVIIIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Control ler, Karachi for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. The petitioner filed an application under section 3(2) read with section 2(k) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance; 1979 hereinafter referred as the 'Ordinance' praying that the ejectment case be dismissed as in view of the notification issued by the Government of Sind exempting the properties belonging to Karachi Port Trust from the operation of the Ordinance, the Controller has no jurisdiction to hear it. The application was dismissed. The admitted position is that the respondent No.l is the owner of the leasehold rights and interest in Plot No.2 Old No.19 measuring 4748 sq. metres, or thereabout situated at West Wharf, Karachi. The respondent No.l has to pay rent for the plot to the respondent No.4 and has the lawful authority to transfer and assign the leasehold rights and interest in the plot. The godown building belongs to respondent No.l and the plot belongs to respondent No.4. In this background we have to examine whether the notification issued by the Government of Sind applies to the property in dispute. Section 3 of the Ordinance provides as follows:‑ (3) Applicability.‑‑(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, all premises other than those owned or requisitioned under any law, by or on behalf of the Federal Government or Provincial Government, situated within an urban area, shall be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance: Provided that nothing contained in sections 8 and 9 shall apply to building for a period of ten years immediately after it has been wholly built or rebuilt and has become ready for occupation. (2) Government may, by notification, exclude any class of premises, or all premises in any area from operation of all or any of the provisions of this Ordinance." The notification issued under section 3 (2) read as follows:‑ "No. VIII (3)SOJ/75.‑‑In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) section 3 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and supersession of all orders issued previously, the Government of Sind are pleased, to exempt the premises belonging to the Karachi Port Trust, Karachi, from the application of the said 'Ordinance.' By virtue of this notification all the properties belonging to the Karachi Port Trust, the respondent No.4, were exempted from the operation of the Ordinance. According to Mr. U. Niamat Moulvi as the property in dispute is owned by respondent No.4 this notification will apply. The learned counsel has referred to Mrs. B.S. Khan v. PSO 1986 CLC 1953. In this case one Mrs. B.S. Khan obtained a lease from Karachi Port Trust in respect of a land. A portion of the land measuring 833 sq. yards was sublet by her to Easa Standard for establishing petrol pump and service station. When Mrs. B.S. Khan filed an application for ejectment under section 15 (2) (ii) of the Ordinance against Pakistan State Oil Co., the successors of the tenant they challenged the maintainability of the application mainly on the ground that the Controller has no jurisdiction. It was held that the ejectment application was not maintainable. This case is distinguishable on facts as there the dispute was in respect of open land which had been leased out to Mrs. B.S. Khan who had sublet it to sub‑tenant. The plot of land had not been transferred to Mrs. B.S. Khan but she was merely a lessee. In the present case the plot of land belongs to KPT, but the structure and building belong to respondent No.l. The dispute between the parties is not in respect of plot of land but the building which does not belong to Respondent No.4. Therefore, the observation of the referred case will not apply to the present case. Mr. Moulvi has contended that notification under subsection (2) can be issued in respect of any premises and, therefore, in view of the definition of the word "premises" the building on the land shall also fall within the ambit of such notification. It is not section 3(2) which excludes the operation of the Ordinance, but it is the notification issued under it which specifies the properties which are 1A excluded from the operation of the Ordinance. The notification produced above speaks of the "property belonging to the KPT". In this regard the' learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Province of Sind through Secratary Education Sind, Karachi and two others v. Ahmad 1983 CLC 1905. In this case by Notification issued by the Government of Sind the premises belonging to the Council constituted under the Sind Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and the premises of colleges and schools, which were taken over under MLR were excluded from the operation of the Ordinance. The question arose whether meaning of the word "premises belonging to local Council" and "premises of colleges and schools" convey the same meaning. My learned brother Ajmal, T (as he then was) after considering the meaning of the word 'of' observed as follows: "From the above‑quoted definition of the word "of" given in the above dictionaries, it is evident that the word "of" has wider connotation as compared to the word 'belonging' and it includes anything "associated with or connected with" and also includes 'belonging to or in possession of'. The use of the two different words in the same notification, namely, 'belonging' and 'of' clearly indicates that they were intended to convey' two different meanings. I am, therefore, inclined to hold the; in the above notification the word 'of' means associated or connected with or in occupation of the schools and colleges It must, therefore, follow that the above notification include the premises in occupation of the schools and colleges though on rental basis." From the above observation it is clear that the words "buildings of the school" connote a wider meaning as compared to the word "belonging to any person'". In the present case the Notification has used the word belonging to KPT. Therefore, this expression refer to such properties which are owned by Karachi Port Trust. The word "belonging" has been defined as follows:‑ "According to Chambers 20th Century Dictionary word 'belong' means to pertain (to); to be the property (of); to he part or appendage (of) In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Fourth edition meaning of the word "belonging" has been given as follows:‑ 'Belonging‑‑Property belonging to a person has two general meaning (1) ownership: (2) the absolute right of user ' Where the word "belonging" has been used as a verb with4 reference to property it means ownership. When any property belongs' to a person, he exercises his right of ownership over it or exclusive right of user. A property will belong to a person if it is vested in,' him which means legally secured by him. Mr‑ Khalid Anwar has referred to A. Saleem v. Wahiduddin PLD 1963 Lah. 517 where question arose whether an evacuee property acquired by the Central Government under section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act could be subject‑matter of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, in respect of which a notification had been issued exempting the plot and rented land vested in the Central Government or Provincial Government from the operation of the said Ordinance. It was held that where the property is acquired under section 3 the person to whom the. Provisional Transfer Order of such properties are issued is not prevented from instituting and prosecuting the proceedings under west Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance as the word 'vest' used in section :1 of the Act and notification under section 3 of the Ordinance refer to two different concepts of ownership and should not be understood to convey exactly the same meaning. Considering the meaning of the word "belonging" the notification under consideration is applicable to properties which are owned by V _P.T. or vest in it. The godown is neither owned by KPT nor it vests or belongs to it. It is the plot which belongs to K.P.T. and the petitioner is not the tenant of the open plot of land. He is a tenant of the godown which belongs to the respondent No.l. The notification, therefore, does not apply to the present case and respondent No.3 has jurisdiction to entertain proceed and decide the ejectment case filed by respondent No.

1. The petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. H. B.T./A‑498/K Petition dismissed.