1991 PLP 357 (MLD)

S.24

Transfer of demised premises

Old owner had already obtained ejectment order against tenant from Rent Controller and appeal against such ejectment was pending

New owner's entitlement to get executed ejectment order passed in favour of his predecessor

Purchaser from original owner being lawful owner and landlord of premises would step into the shoes of his pre decessor and was thus entitled to file execution application. Date of hearing: 8th August, 1990. This is an appeal under section 24 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 filed by the appellant/tenant, who is aggrieved by an order dated 31-3-1990 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Rented Controller, Hyderabad in Execution No.37 of 1988, issuing writ of possession against the appellant/tenant from the godown No.B/1846/2. Tiluk Incline, Hyderabad. It may be briefly stated that respondent No.1 Fled Rent Application No.16/78 against the appellant on the grounds of personal requirement and default. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 17-12-1983 ordered ejectment of appellant the ground of default whereupon the appellant preferred appeal bearing No.F.R.A. No.16/1984 before the Circuit Bench of this Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, respondent No.l is stated to have sold out the premises in question to respondent No.2. It is alleged that respondent No.2 after purchasing the premises in question did not serve notice as contemplated under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Instead respondent No.2 straightaway made an application for being joined as party to the said F.R.A. No.16 of 1984 Having come to know of the change of ownership, the appellant withdrew the said appeal, as according to him, the cause of action on the alleged ground of default in favour of the respondent No.l had vanished. Subsequently, two execution applications were filed, one by respondent No.1 and the other by respondent No.2, both of which were dismissed for non -prosecution. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 filed another execution application, in which the impugned order was passed. This execution application was filed in the name of respondent No. l by respondent No.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the' appellant that since the demised premises was transferred by the respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent No.2, it was incumbent upon respondent No.2 to serve a mandatory notice on the appellant as required under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which reads asunder:-- "Where the ownership of a premises, in possession of the tenant has been transferred by sale, gift, inheritance or by, such other mode, the new owner shall send an intimation of such transfer in writing by registered post, to the tenant and the tenant shall not be deemed to have defaulted in payment of the rent for the purpose of clause (ii) of subsection (2) of section 15, if the rent due is paid within thirty days from the date when the intimation should, in normal course, have reached the tenant." The said section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 though not a verbatim reproduction of section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is in all material respects the same. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Additional District Judge etc., 1985 CLC 1854, in which it was held that if the requisite notice is not given, the tenant shall not be deemed to be a defaulter in the payment of rent. It is true that as and when transfer of a demised premises has taken place, it is incumbent upon the new owner to send mandatory notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to the tenant, whereunder 50 days time is granted to him to clear arrears of rent but it may be kept in mind that the section has application only when the new owner intends to tile ejectment proceedings against the tenant on the ground of default in his own name on the cause of action accrued in favour of his predecessor or shall have accrued in his own favour after the date of the said transfer on the expiry of the notice period. In the present case it is not so. The old landlord after obtaining ejectment order from the Controller and while the appeal was pending in the High Court had transferred the premises in question. Hence section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is not' applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. No notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was required to be served by the new owner on the tenant/appellant. It may also be stated here that having come to know of the change of ownership, the appellant withdrew his earlier appeal being F.R.A. No.16/84 against his eviction and therefore the order dated 17-12-1983 has attained finality on the basis of which the said execution application was being filed. It was next argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.2 has no locus standi to file the execution application in the name of respondent No.l, the old owner. Learned counsel has failed to substantiate his stand. Respondent No. 2 being lawful owner and landlord of the premises steps into the shoes of his predecessor and hence he is entitled to file the said execution application. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. A.A./S-675/K Appeal dismissed.