1986 PLP 1757 (CLC)

‑‑‑S. 21(1)‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑Proof of‑‑Evacuee property‑‑Transfer of‑‑Proof‑‑Evidence on record showing that property in dispute was transferred to landlord by Settlement Department and transfer document (P.T.O.) issued in his favour was still subsisting‑ Fact that no final transfer order (P.T.O.) was issued in favour of landlord, held, could not be a ground for holding that title of property in favour of landlord was doubtful‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant between parties established in circumstances. Rehmatullah v. Ali Murad 1983 S C M R 1064 distinguished. A. Majid Khan for App llant. A. Wajid Wyne for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th October, 1985. This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance of 1979 is filed by the appellant /landlord against order of the Rent Controller, dated 10‑2‑1985, rejecting Case No. 690 of 1981 filed by the appellant against respondent on the ground of default in payment of rent and conversion of the premises into commercial premises from residential one. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that there existed no relation of landlord and tenant between the parties. The respondent denied in his written statement that he was the tenant of the appellant. He asserted that one Habib Ahmed was the landlord of the premises who used to recover rent and issue receipt for the same. The respondent in support of his contention produced receipts issued by one Habib Ahmed showing recovery of rent upto July, 1968. It was the case of the respondent before the Rent Controller that from August, 1968 no one came to recover rent from him and, therefore, he did not pay rent for the premises. The appellant in his evidence before the Rent Controller produced the copy of the Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.0.) issued in his name in respect of the premises in dispute, and he also alleged that notice under section 30 of the Displaced Person (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1958 was served on the respondent before institution of the rent case. The appellant also summoned and examined witnesses from the Settlement Department who produced the original P.T.O. of the said property before the Rent Controller in evidence. It was not disputed before the Rent Controller that the original P.T.O. and the copy of the P.T.O. on record stand in the name of present appellant. The Rent Controller, however, way of the view that as the appellant remained silent for a long period and did not claim rent and has failed to establish that he served the required notice under section 30 of Act XXVIII of 1958, therefore, it created doubt with regard to his title to the property. The conclusion of the Rent Controller are based on mere surmises. The evidence on record do establish that the property in dispute was transferred to appellant by the Settlement Department and the transfer document (P. T.O.) issued in his favour is still subsisting. The fact that no final transfer order (P.T.O.) was issued in favour of the appellant could not be a ground for holding that the title of the property in favour of the appellant was doubtful. The witnesses who were summoned from the office of the Settlement Department categorically stated that so far P. T.O. issued in favour of appellant was not cancelled and that P.T.O. has not been issued, because the applicant did not apply for its issuance. In these circumstances the conclusion of the Rent Controller that appellant has failed to establish his title or that there was doubt with regard to ownership of the premises is without any basis. Rent Controller has referred to the case Rehmatullah v. Ali Murad 1983 SCMR 1064, and the learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon this case before me to support the order of the Rent Controller but in my view the facts of Rehmatullah's case are quite distinguishable and has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. I accordingly accept this appeal set aside the order of Rent Controller and hold that the relationship of landlord and the tenant exists between the parties. The case is accordingly sent back to Rent Controller to decide the ejectment case on merit according to law. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T. Appeal accepted.