1987 PLP 2100 (MLD)

4. It appears that the appellant did not comply with this request. On 6th December, 1982 Sher Ali and the present landlord/ respondent jointly sent another. notice through their Advocate requesting the appellant to pay rents to the respondent as the property had changed hands and was owned by the respondent. This notice also had no effect. The respondent, therefore, filed the application for ejectment before the learned Rent Controller on 14-3-1983 alleging default in payment of rents, taxes and charges and praying for the ejectment of the appellant.

5. The appellant has taken up a plea that the present respondent is not a lawful owner of the property, that the property belongs to the K.M.C. and the present respondent is a trespasser.

6. As stated above there is a registered Lease Deed in favour of the respondent by '

1. C. In this situation the refusal to pay rent and raise an objection to the title: of the landlord /respondent in the Court of Rent Controller is not a genuine grievance.

7. This would have concluded the case, but there is one more important factor to be considered. The appellant has filed a regular suit being Suit No.3574 of 1982 for a relief of "permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his agents, servant and any other person or persons working under him and acting on his behalf from ejecting, dispossessing and disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in respect of tenements on Plot No.86 (New No.87) Jinnahabad No.2, Lyari Quarters, Herchandrai Road, Karachi. " This suit is still pending.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant again wants to argue that the respondent is not the lawful owner of the house and as such not entitled to recover rents. This would require investigation of title of the respondent and in this connection such material as is riot a part of the record, would have to be investigated. Moreover at the time when the learned Rent Controller examined this plea, he possessed no such powers to examine title of the landlord and if such a plea was raised, all that he could do, was to refer the parties to the regular Civil Court. But the learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that this plea has been examined by the regular Court also and in any event the appellant is stopped from raising this plea again and again.

9. Reference is made to Suit No.3574/1982. This suit was filed by the appellant for "permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his agents, servant and any other person or persons working under him and acting on his behalf from ejecting, dispossessing and disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the tenements on Plot No.86 (New No.87) Jinnahabad No.2, Lyari Quarters, Herchandrai Road, Karachi".

10. In para-1 of the plaint the appellant had himself accepted that he was tenant in respect of this plot. I need not go into full details of this litigation. Suffices to say that Issue No.5 was struck by the learned VIIth Civil Judge to the effect "whether the plaintiff can refuse to pay rent to the defendant?" This issue was discussed at length in the judgment. The relevant para of the discussion on this issue is reproduced below:- "So the plaintiffs are the tenants of the defendant. The defendants have not been dispossessed of the plot in suit by the K.M.C. The plot in suit has not been. leased out to the plaintiffs, K.M.C. has been accepting taxes in connection with the plot in suit from the defendant. So definitely the defendant is entitled to realise rent in connection with the plot in suit from the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs continue to be tenants of the defendant. So under these circumstances the plaintiffs cannot refuse to pay the rent to the defendant. Accordingly my finding is in negative so far this issue is concerned."

11. I am informed that an appeal against the judgment was also dismissed. In my opinion the above material was enough for the Rent Controller to hold that there was a prima facie case in favour of the landlord or his transferee to claim rents from the appellant. This is exactly what the learned Rent Controller has done. The learned Rent Controller in his order has relied on this and other material and has come to a conclusion that the respondent was the lawful owner of the premises in case.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant wants me to reverse these findings and examine the title of the respondent and record a finding that due to imperfect or defective title of the respondent, the appellant is absolved from making any payment to the respondent. This will not only be beyond the powers under the Rent Act, but also contrary to the finding recorded in a regular suit on the basis of the judgment in Suit No.3574/Lg82 and indeed on account of clear admission made in that suit by the appellant in his plaint, affidavit e and application for interim injunction, the learned Rent Controller has rightly come to the conclusion that the ownership of the previous landlord was established beyond doubt. The previous landlord has sold the property and notified this fact to the appellant and both have jointly requested the appellant to attorn to the new landlord. He is still resisting and has failed to tender rents to the landlord and thus committed default in payment of rents. The finding on Issue No.2 are thus unexceptionable. I do not see any reason to reverse these findings and the appellant may pursue any other remedy which may be available to him so far as the question of title to the property is concerned. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. M.Y.H./A-130/K Appeal dismissed.