P L D 1964 (W (PLP)

A shop and a balakhana over it bearing Municipal No. 479, situated in Saddar Bazar, Abbottabad, an evacuee property, was put to unrestricted auction by the Settlement Department and it was purchased by Mst. Sultana Bibi respondent on 15th September 1960, on payment of Rs. 17,500 as its price. A P. T. O. was issued to her on 27th January 1961. This property was in posses sion of Dost Muhammad appellant as tenant of the Settlement Department. By virtue of the issue of the P. T. O. in favour of the respondent, the appellant became the tenant of the said pur chaser. In compliance with the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, she issued a registered notice (acknowledgment due) through her Mukhtar on 13th February 1961 to the appellant. In this notice, she notified three things to the appellant:- (1) That she became the owner of this property by purchase from the Settlement Department since 27th January 1961, and, therefore, she had become the landlord and the appellant as her tenant. (2) That for the future the appellant was required to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 50 p. m. before 5th of every month, as being the reasonable rent of the property in suit. (3) That within 15 days of the receipt of the notice, the appellant should execute a lease-deed in her favour.

2. The appellant having made the default of payment of rent, the respondent applied to the Controller Abbottabad on 22nd May 1961 for his ejectment on the same ground. The appellant defended this application on a number of grounds which did not prevail before the Controller and consequently he was ordered to be ejected on 8th September 1962. In appeal he had no better fate, because Mr. Shafiur Rahman, District Judge, Hazara upheld the order of the Controller and dismissed it on 10th October 1962. Dost Muhammad instituted this S. A. O. against the order of the learned District Judge and it was admitted to full hearing for a limited purpose, namely, to find out if under section 30 (3) (i) of the Dis placed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, a separate notice was required to be given by the landlord to the tenant.

3. I have heard Mian Younas Shah, counsel for the appellant, at great length on this point. It may be mentioned here that according to the assessment of the Municipal Committee, Abbottabad, for the year 1960-61, which appears to be the latest assess ment of the property situated in the area of the committee, this property was assessed to Rs. 600 as annual rent. The respondent, therefore, has rightly claimed Rs. 50 as rent per mensem, as it was provided in section 30 (1) (a) in the following words:- "It shall be lawful for the transferee to charge a rent on the basis of the latest assessment of the Municipality or local authority, as the case may be." Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, had to concede that the amount of Rs. 50 as rent per mensem was a correct rent which the respondent could legitimately claim in law from the appellant.

4. Now I turn to the provision of law which make it obliga tory on the transferee of the evacuee property to serve the present occupant of the property with a notice. These provisions are given in section 30 (1) (b) and section 30 (3) (i). The former runs in the following words:-- Section 30 (1) (b). "It shall not be lawful for the transferred to eject such persons from the house, shop, industrial concern, cinema house or printing press for a period of three years from the date of transfer, notice of which shall be given by the transferee to the tenant within one month of such transfer by registered post (acknowledgment due"). Section 30 (3) (i) is to the following effect:-- "Who had not, within three months from the date of receipt of a notice of demand sent to him by the transferee by registered post (acknowledgment due), paid or tendered the amount of rent or arrears of rent due for any period after the transfer."

5. The learned counsel for the appellant interpreted these provisions to the effect that the notice of transfer and the notice of demand of rent should have been separately given and since the respondent had given one notice on 13th February 1961 notifying the transfer of the property in her favour and also demanding rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per mensem, therefore, she had not complied with the mandatory provisions of these parts of section 30 of the Act, and hence the appellant was not liable to ejectment on the basis of the default he had admittedly made in not paying the rent of the property for three months. I have considered the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant with great care and earnest ness, but I regret I cannot agree with the interpretation he had placed on two parts of section 30 given above. However in section 30 of the Act, it is provided that notice of information of A the transfer in favour of the transferee and notice of demand rent should be separately given. The direction given in this section is fully complied with when in one and the same notice the transferee intimated the occupant of the property of her hav ing purchased this property in auction as a result of which a P. T. O. was issued to her and also demanding rent, in accordance with the latest assessment of the Municipal Committee, from him for the future. If both these things were given in one and the same notice, then it does not lie in the mouth of the occupant of the property that he had neither received the intimation of the transfer or the transferee had not served him with a notice of demand with respect to rent. Counsel contended that the appel lant had the statutory right of having received a notice of demand of rent before he could be ejected for non-payment of rent for the period of three months and the provisions of this statute should have been complied with in letter and spirit both and since separate notices were not given, therefore, the respondent had not complied with the provisions of section 30 in letter, though he had complied It in spirit. As stated above, there is no provision in section 30 that separate notices should have been given to the occupant and the requirement of the law has been fulfilled when in one notice both the essentials have been mentioned.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no substance in the con tention of the learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. K. B. A. Appeal dismissed.