1992 PLP 323 (MLD)

(4) What should the order be?" Both the parties led oral evidence and produced documents on the basis of which they were claiming title or interest in property. The Rent Controller by his judgment passed on 25‑4‑1988 decided that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Admittedly no rent was paid by any of the appellants; he held that they had committed default in payment of rent. He further held that respondent needed the premises for her own bona fide use. On the basis of such findings he allowed the ejectment of the appellants by his judgments passed on 25‑4‑1986. The present appeals are directed against these judgments. As application under section 21(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 has been filed today in Court in both the Appeals for bringing on record certain documents relating to the suits for specific performance of the agreement and cancellation of the sale‑deed pending between the parties before the Civil Courts relating to the premises in dispute. Since these applications are jointly filed on behalf of both the parties, the applications are allowed and documents brought on record of these two appeals. Mr. Asad Ali Bilgrami, Advocate appearing for the appellants in these appeals mainly contended that the evidence brought on record does not prove the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent Controller was, therefore, not competent to order ejectment of the appellants from the premises under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. He further contended that the fide of the property in dispute is sub judice in the two suits filed by the appellants and in view of it, the Rent Controller was not competent to decide the title. in favour of respondent. He has relied on the documents produced in Court today on the point and the decision arrived at in F.RA. No.428 of. 1987 and F.RA. 233 of 1987 by this Court and the case published in 183 SCMR 1064. Mr. Rasheed A. Rizvi, appearing for the respondent contended that according to the evidence brought on record of the cases before the Rent Controller it has been established that the respondent is the owner having a valid title on the basis of a registered sale‑deed executed directly by the previous owner Mst. Arifa Pardesi. As against it the appellants are basing their ?claim on agreements to sell executed by the attorney of the real owner. He has referred to section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act which clearly indicates that an agreement to sell confers no right or title over the property. Besides a registered document takes precedence over an unregistered document. According to him proceedings under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 will not be stopped or stalled merely on the ground that suits are pending in connection with the premises in question before a Civil Court. He has referred to the cases reported in PLD 1991 SC 242 and 1990 Supreme Court Monthly Review

647. The sale‑deed executed and registered in favour of the respondent clearly establishes her title over the property in question. Till such time as the appellants succeed in having the sale‑deed cancelled and in obtaining a decree for specific performance of the agreements in their favour, the respondent shall continue to be the owner of the property in dispute. Term "tenant" has been defined under section 2(j) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 as under: ‑ "(j) "tenant" means any person who undertakes or is bound to pay rent as consideration for the possession or occupation of any premises by him or by any other person on his behalf and include:' (i) any person who continues to be in possession or occupation of the premises after the termination of his tenancy; (ii) heirs of the tenant in possession or occupation of the premises after the death of the tenant." Term "tenant" carried a different definition in the previous statute. Section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 defined it as under: "(i) "tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes (a) a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, and (b) the wife and children of a deceased tenant, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building or rented land by its tenant, unless with the consent in writing of the landlord, or a person to whom the collection of rent or fees in a public market, car? stand or slaughter‑house or of rents for shops has been framed out or leased by a municipal, town or notified area committee, or by the Corporation of the City of? Lahore or by the Lahore Improvement Trust or any other Improvement Trust;" It will thus be noticed that the definition of the term "tenant" has been materially changed from its previous definition. According to the definition given the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, following person shall be the tenants: (1) A person who undertakes to payment as consideration for possession or occupancy of any premises. Undertaking may be oral or through a document. (2) A person who is bound to pay rent for being in‑ possession or occupation of a premises. In this case there may not be any undertaking by a person in possession or occupation of a premises. (3) A person who holds on possession or occupies the premises even after the termination of tenancy. (4) Surviving heirs of a deceased tenant in actual possession or occupation of the premises:' A person who is in possession or occupation of a premises owned by someone else although he may not hate undertaken to pay rent to the owner is normally bound to pay rent to him as consideration for being in possession or i occupation of that premises. Such a person shall be treated to be a tenant for' the purpose of the Ordinance. This new category of tenants has been introduced for the first time in the definition of term "tenant" under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Appellants in these appeals have no right, 8 interest or title over the premises in question but admittedly they being in possession of the premises will be ordinarily bound to pay rent as consideration for being in possession and they will be treated as "tenants" for the purposes of the Ordinance in view of the changed definition of term "tenant". Their relationship of being tenants of the respondent in the above circumstances is, therefore, established. The arguments advanced by Mr. Asad Ali Bilgrami, Advocate for the appellants have no force. As regards the pendency of suits over the title of the premises in question between the parties appellants will always be free to establish their claim in the suits already filed by them. In the event they succeed in their cause the possession of the premises can always be restored to them without any difficulty. By taking such a view I am in fact following the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported in PLD 1991 SC

242. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are dismissed. Mr. Rasheed A. Rizvi, Advocate for the respondent undertakes that respondent will not file execution applications in the two cases for a period of six months from today on the condition that each of them pays the rent @ of Rs.200 per month regularly for that period. The appellants shall not be ejected for a period of six months on the condition that the rent for November, 1991 and December, 1991 will be deposited by each one of them as stated above with the Nazir of this Court by 10th of January, 1992 and thereafter on or before 10th of every succeeding month. This concession will enable the appellants to have their suits decided by that time. H.B.T./M‑1530/K ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed.