1989SCMR957 (PLP)

ABDUL QADIR SHAIKH , J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Sind High Court dated 17‑8‑1988 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner and thereby upholding the order of Rent Controller directing his eviction from the demised premises. The facts briefly stated are as under: Petitioner was inducted as a tenant of the demised premises by one Mst. Noor Jehan under an agreement in writing dated 30‑3‑1973 on monthly rent of Rs.165. Thereafter, by a registered sale‑deed dated 12‑4‑1974 Mst. Noor Jehan sold the property to respondent who by a notice dated 15‑7‑1975 under section 13‑A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 informed the petitioner of the transfer of property in his favour and called upon him to pay the arrears of rent from 15‑4‑1974 at the rate of Rs.200 per month and also to vacate the premises by 31‑7‑1975 as according to respondent, petitioner had vacated the premises and handed over possession thereof to him but was inducted later as a licensee for some time. Petitioner, in reply, denied these legations asserting that he was a tenant of Mst. Noor Jehan on the monthly ' rental of Rs.165 and has been depositing rent in Rent Miscellaneous Application No.1823 of 1974 filed by him against the landlady as she had refused to accept the rent. Petitioner further stated m reply that since he was not aware of the sale of the property by Mst. Noor Jehan in respondent's favour a copy of the sale‑deed be sent to him so that the respondent's legal status as the landlord be clarified. No further correspondence was exchanged by the parties, and respondent then initiated the ejectment proceedings against petitioner through an application dated 30‑7‑1977. In defence, petitioner raised the same pleas and the learned Rent Controller in order to resolve the controversy framed two issues: firstly whether there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; and secondly, whether petitioner was a defaulter in payment of rent from 1‑4‑1974. After recording evidence produced by the parties, learned Rent Controller, decided both the issues in respondent's favour and directed the petitioner to hand over possession of the premises to him. On appeal, learned Judge in the High Court also took the same view the main emphasis being on the fact that after service of notice under Section 13‑A of the Ordinance, petitioner not having directly paid the rent to the respondent was liable to be evicted. Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner referred us to the deposits of rent made by the petitioner from 1974 in Miscellaneous Rent Case No.1823 of 1974 in the Court of the Rent Controller vide Nazir's Ledger Nos.654, 732, 815, 923 and 1087. From this documentary evidence it is apparent that petitioner was depositing the rent uptil April 1979, and thereafter under the orders of the Rent Controller requiring him to deposit rent in the proceedings out of which this petition arises, petitioner deposited the rent in Rent Case No.2361 of 1977 from May 1979 onwards. All these payments are admitted by Mr. Muzaffar Hussain, learned counsel for the caveator. He also admits that in reply to respondent's notice under section 13‑A of the Ordinance dated 15‑7‑1975 petitioner called upon the respondent to satisfy him as to the transfer of the property in his favour by forwarding a copy of the registered sale‑deed, but the caveator made no response thereto. On these facts, there seems to be force in the submission that since the petitioner was all along depositing rent in Court in the name of his previous', landlady, he in the absence of any satisfactory evidence as to respondent's title to receive the rent did not acknowledge him to be the person entitled to receive rent, and this controversy between the parties could have been resolved by the respondent and not by the petitioner, by forwarding a copy of the sale‑deed of the; property in his favour which was demanded very justifiably by the petitioner. The submissions made in support of the petition deserve consideration, we therefore grant leave to appeal and allow the petition. Security Rs.2,

500. The appeal arising out of this petition will be heard on the present record at an early date. It is however open to the parties to file additional documents, if any. Petitioner shall not be evicted from the demised premises till appeal is decided provided he continues to deposit rent in Court. BM.Y.H./F‑98/S Leave granted.