1995 PLP 348 (CLC)

M.A. Rashid for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th March, 1994. Respondent Hafiz Jalaluddin is the transferee of a tenement No. 3/4 of premises constructed on plot bearing No. R‑C‑‑4/7/2, situated on Jinnah Street, Ranchore Lane, Karachi from the Settlement Department, the property being an evacuee property. This transfer was made in his favour on 19‑1‑1976. The premises were occupied by appellant Abdul Ghani. In 1977 Hafiz Jalaluddin filed an ejectment application against the appellant. He succeeded in obtaining appellant's ejectment but on appeal the ejectment order was set aside and the case remanded to the Rent Controller. The case was ultimately dismissed for non‑prosecution. In the year 1986 the appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent in respect of the same premises, alleging that the respondent has obtained the transfer of the property in question in his favour from the Settlement Department by misrepresentation. He did not succeed in the suit and was also unsuccessful in appeal. On 12‑1‑1988, respondent Hafiz Jalaluddin filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking ejectment of the appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent. He claimed rent at the rate of Rs.40 per month and by the time he has filed the second rent application an amount of Rs.4,800 became due and payable on account of arrears of rent. This application was resisted by the appellant and he claimed that notice under section 13 of the Displaced Persons Act, 1958 was not issued to him and in case the property was validly transferred to the respondent, he had not served a notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and, therefore, he would not be treated as defaulter. He further claimed that the property was transferred to him and, therefore, he was the owner, and not tenant, of the property in question. The respondent examined himself and produced certain documents. Similarly, the appellant examined himself and produced certain documents. The Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, held that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, the ejectment application was maintainable and that the appellant was a wilful defaulter. He, therefore, ordered his ejectment by the order dated 23‑1‑1989. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. Mr. Zahir Hussain Chishty, Advocate for the appellant, has raised the same arguments as were advanced by him before the trial Court. Mr. MA. Rashid, Advocate for the respondent, contended that in view of the fact that the appellant has contested the previous rent application and actually. filed a suit against the respondent, the appellant was fully aware that the property in question was duly transferred in favour of the respondent. He also contended that since the Evacuee laws have been repealed, the provision of notice under section 13 of the Displaced Persons Act will not be applicable and because of the above facts as the appellant was aware that the property was, transferred to the respondent, no notice was required to be issued under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,1979. The admitted' facts of the case are that the appellant did not pay rent to the respondent even after he became aware of the fact that the property was transferred to respondent and even after the filing of the application, the appellant has not deposited rent regularly and did not pay the rent for a period of two years, from 9‑7‑1985 to 8‑9‑1987. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the two has been established by the judgment of the Rent Controller and no exception can be taken to such finding. Appellant has produced no evidence to show that he is the transferee/owner of the rented premises. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appellant has been rightly proved to be a defaulter and order of ejectment passed in the case is justifiable. The appeal is therefore dismissed. By consent, of Mr. MA. Rashid, Advocate for the respondent, the appellant is permitted to remain in possession of the rented premises for six months provided he deposits the monthly rent with the Rent Controller for this period every month regularly at the rate of Rs.40. On expiry of the period of six months, the appellant shall put the respondent in vacant and peaceful possession of the rented premises. In either of the two cases, on his failure to do so, the Rent Controller shall issue writ of possession without notice to the appellant. H.B.T./A‑1502/K Appeal dismissed.