1984 PLP 450 (CLC)

‑‑‑S. 13‑Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54‑Sind Co‑opera tive Societies Act (VII of 1925), S. 32(1)‑Sale transaction‑Registra tion‑Contention that once immovable property transferred, such transaction would compulsorily be registrable notwithstanding pro visions of S. 32, Sind Co‑operative Societies Act‑‑Record, however, showing Society not only allotting its plots from its very inception to its members but also quarters built by it and no other document of transfer ever executed by Society to its members‑Once allotment given to person purchasing shares, he becomes entitled to occupy such plot by virtue of said allotment‑Appellant merely got permission of occupation of disputed premises and sale transaction not arising requiring registration under S. 54 of Transfer of Property Act Held further, appellant being tenant of respondent, his eviction rightly recorded by trial Court, in circumstances. A. S. FAROOQUI, J.‑This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge, of this Court dismissing the tenant's second appeal under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, against whom an order for possession had been made by the Controller which order had been upheld by the Additional District Judge in appeal.

2. The tenant who is now the appellant before us, is occupying a quarter, bearing No. 505 in Pir Illahi Bakhsh Colony, Karachi. He was in such occupation as a tenant of one Masood Ansari. The said Mr. Ansari transferred such rights as he had in the quarter to the present respondent, Muhammad Fazlur Rehaman Latifi on the 30th of January, 1964 and this transfer was approved by the Managing Committee of the Society by its resolution, dated the 25th of February, 1964 and the said Mr. Latifi pur chased the necessary shares of the Society which is the procedure followed in such matters. It was the case of the respondent that he had purchased this quarter for his own occupation, and that he was under pressure by his landlord to vacate what he was occupying. Both the First and the Second Court held in favour of the present respondent in respect of the bona fide personal need. Upon this finding, which was also upheld by the learned Single Judge, there should have been no difficulty in the respondents having been put into possession, but in the course of the proceedings the stand taken by the tenant/appellant was that the respondent was not the landlord No specified plea was raised in the ‑written statement, which was filed by him in the First Court, which was extremely brief and vague. However, an issue was framed with regard to that point in the following terms :‑ "Whether the applicant is the landlord of the quarter in dispute." On this issue all the Courts so as far found in favour of the respondent, The point which was specifically argued before the learned Single Judge was that the transaction between Masood Ansari and the present respondent really amounted to a sale of the quarter, and its value being more than Rs. 100 the transaction was compulsorily registrable under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was pointed out that section 32(1) of the Co‑operative Societies Act merely granted exemption with regard to the purchase of shares in a society even though that Society owned immovable property, but was added that the purchase of hares did not confer the ownership in respect of the quarter, and that was obtained by the respondent by entering into a transaction of a sale from Masood Ansari. The learned Single Judge repelled this contention after referring to section 32 of the Co operative Societies Act, and on the documents on record the conclusion that he reached was that Society was the owner both of the plot as well as of the quarter, and the manner of transferring these to members was by transfer of shares.

3. Mr. Ghulam Hussain Abbasi has contended that the view taken by the Single Judge was erroneous because once it was held that such and immovable property was transferred, that transaction would be compulsorily registrable notwithstanding section 32 of the Co‑operative Societies Act. In our opinion, the argument raised can be answered in two ways. In the first place, there is material record, and it is a matter of common knowledge that the Pir Illahi Bakhsh Society not only allotted its plots from its very inception in 1948 to its members, but also the quarters, which the Society itself built. No other document of transfer was ever executed by the Society to its members. Once an allotment was given to a person who purchased shares of the Society he became entitled to occupy the plot by virtue of the said allotment. This was the position which was also taken before us by Mr. M. M. Mahmudi for the respondent, and he rightly com plained that if this position had been specially taken in the First Court, it~ would have been very easy for the respondent to show what was the nature of the transactions by which the quarters changed hands in the said Society. He also drew our attention to the admission of the appellant in his evidence to the effect that it was the Society which was the superior owner of the quarters. It follows that if all that was granted by the Society was an allotment by virtue of the purchase of shares, the person who got it merely got a permission for occupation. That being so, that transaction would not require registration under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Even a lease, which amounts to a transfer of interest in the immovable property, was not granted in this case by the Society.

5. The second answer is that admittedly the appellant was the tenant of Masood Ansari. Whatever rights Masood Ansari had come to be posses sed by the present respondent. the appellant would have been estopped to question the right of Masood Ansari to evict him. By parity of reason h6 would also be estopped from challenging the ownership or title of the present respondent.

6. In view of these conclusions, we dismiss this appeal with costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.