1977 PLP 147 (SCMR)

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑This appeal by special leave of this Court‑ is from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the 'second appeal pre ferred by Ghulam Rasul, son of Daulat Khan, predecessor-in‑interest of appellants Nos. (i) to (iv). It appears that the shop in dispute was transferred to respondent Ghulam Rasul, son of Muhammad Ali on the 23rd of July 1965. On the 26th of October 1967, the respondent served a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, hereinafter called the Act, upon Ghulam Rasul, son of Daulat Khan, who had become a statutory tenant of the shop under the Act, demanding rent at the rate of Rs. 13.50 per month. The original rent of the shop was Rs. 1.69 per month, but according to the assessment made by the local authority for the year 1965‑66 the rent of the shop was enhanced to Rs. 240 annually (i.e. Rs. 20 per month). This assessment became effective from the 1st of July 1965. As the appellant failed to comply with the demand, the respondent filed an application on the, 9th of February 1968, under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and asked for ejectment of the tenant, inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on the 21st of October 1969, and, inter alia, held that there was no deliberate or wilful default in payment of rent on the part of the tenant. The Rent Controller, however, found that accord ing to the latest assessment for the year 1965‑66 the shop in dispute was assessed at the rate Rs. 240 per annum and that the assessment came into effect from the 1st of July 1965. The Rent Controller further found that the transferee could in law charge the rent from the tenant at the rate of Rs. 20 per month, although he claimed rent at a lesser rate, i.e., Rs. 13.50 per month only. The respondent‑landlord went up in appeal and the learned District Judge allowed the appeal on the 3rd of March 1970, and ordered the eject ment of the appellant The appellant, thereupon, preferred a second appeal before the High Court brut it, too, was dismissed. On behalf of the appellant it has been contended that under section 30 of the Act a tenant has been given protection from ejectment for a period of six years irrespective of the fact whether he is a defaulter or not. The con tention is untenable, for, no such thing is provided under section 30 of the Act which runs as follows :‑

(1) Where any person is in possession of any evacuee house, or shop or has been declared on or before the 20th day of December 1958, by a Custodian to have tenancy rights from a date prior to the 14th day of August 1947, in any industrial concern, cinema house or printing press which is transferred to any other person under the provisions of this Act, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law such person shall without prejudice to any other right which he may have in that house, shop, industrial concern, cinema house or printing press, be deemed to be a tenant of the transferee on the same terms and conditions as to payment of rent or otherwise on which he held it immediately before transfer : Provided that‑ (a) it shall be lawful for the transferee to charge a rent on the basis of the latest assessment carried out by the Municipality or local authority, as the case may be, for other properties in the locality generally ; and (b) it shall not be lawful for the transferee to eject such persons from the house or shop for a period of six years and from the industrial concern, cinema house or printing press for a period of 3 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 (acknowledgement due). (2)

, (3) Nothing in proviso (b) to subsection (1) shall apply to a tenant -- (i) who has not within 3 months from the date of receipt of a notice of demand sent to him by the transferee by Registered Post (acknowledge ment due) paid or tendered the amount of rent or arrears of rent due for any period after the transfer ; or (ii)

, (4) On the expiry of the period mentioned in proviso (b) to subsection (1) or on the contravention of any of the provisions of subsection (3), whichever is earlier, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee and the tenant shall be regulated in accordance with the law for the time being in force relating to such relationship. It is, thus, evident that the protection is available to a tenant as long as he fulfills the terms and conditions of the tenancy which of course means that he pays the rent regularly and in time according to the terms of the tenancy. In regard to the enhancement of the rent, section 30(1), proviso (a) itself provides that the landlord is entitled to claim rent on the basis of the latest assessment of the Municipality or the local authority. In the present case as has been noticed already, in the assessment for the year 1965‑66 the local authority increased the annual rent of the shop in question to Rs. 240 per annum. The landlord was, thus, entitled to claim rent at the rate of Rs. 20 per month. Instead, however, he claimed Rs. 13.50 per month only. The tenant failed to pay at the rate within the prescribed period after the notice had been served on him, and he was, therefore, clearly a defaulter and liable to ejectment as such. Two decisions of the Lahore High Court, namely, Malik Abdul Aziz v. West Pakistan Publishing Company Ltd. (P L D 1965 Lah. 82) and Nizam Din v. Mst. Nawab Bibi (P L D 1970 Lah. 923), cited on behalf of the appellant have no application to the present case. In the former case under report it was held that the notice of demand of rent did not comply with the provisions of section 30, subsection (P L D 1965 Lah. 82) of the Act inasmuch as there was only an allegation in the notice that the tenant had failed to pay the rent according to the assessment without having men tioned as to what was the actual assessment. In the latter case it was held that the liability of the tenant to pay at the enhanced rent arose after the notice had been duly served on him by the transferee demanding the enhanced rent. In the present case the tenant was served with the notice to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 13.50 p.m. which was less than the rate fixed by the latest assessment, and yet he failed to pay the rent within the, requisite period. There is no substance in the appeal, and it is, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs. The appellants are allowed two' months' time to vacate the shop in dispute and deliver possession of it to the respondent‑landlord. Appeal dismissed.