2000 PLP 2002 (CLC)

Instant appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 24‑3‑2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby he confirmed the order, dated 11‑3‑1996 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Rawalpindi, who accepted the petition moved by respondent No. 1.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No. l Manzoor Ahmad sought ejectment of appellant from Shop No.3 Imperial Market, Rawalpindi which was rented out to the appellant vide a written agreement of rent, dated 13‑12‑1981 by Muhammad Iqbal respondent No.2 who was joint owner in equal share with respondent No. l under registered sale‑deed, dated 16‑5‑1977. Prior to ‑its purchase, respondent No.2 Muhammad Iqbal was in possession of the said shop and he had been receiving rent from the appellant till 4‑8‑1990 when he (respondent No.2) sold his share of the shop in dispute to respondent No.

1. In this way, respondent No. l became absolute owner of the shop. On becoming absolute owner, respondent No. l served a legal. notice, dated 15‑9‑1990 upon the appellant as well as Mazhar and Muhammad Saleem (not arrayed as respondents in the instant S.A.O.) in respect of change of ownership. The said notice as replied but they failed to tender any rent since 15‑9‑1990. At the time of sale‑deed, the rent was fixed at Rs.2,000 per month but the appellant with mala fide intention asserted that he had been paying rent at the rate of Rs.1,000 per month. The appellant further asserted that he had entered into an agreement for the purchase of shop with respondent No.2. Respondent No. l asserted that he required the shop in good faith for his personal use. The ejectment petition was resisted by the appellant along with others through a joint written reply. They contended that respondent No:2 Muhammad Iqbal while, giving an impression to be the absolute owner of the shop in dispute, rented out the same to him and later on had entered into an agreement for its sale. Thus, the appellant denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. They further raised various other objections and prayed for dismissal of the ejectment petition. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant? OPA. (2) Relief. In support of their respective stand parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The trail Court vide order, dated 11‑3‑1996 accepted the ejectment petition which order was assailed by way of an appeal which was heard and disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment, dated 24‑3‑2000, whereby he confirmed the findings given by the trial Court and directed the appellant to vacate the premises on 1‑4‑2db

0. The appellant has felt aggrieved of the said judgment and filed the instant S.A.O.

3. Preliminary arguments have been heard and record perused.

4. Main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that notice under section 13‑A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance could not be given by the landlord/respondent No.l as he was not a new owner and notice under section 13‑A could only be given by a new owner. He contended that both Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Iqbal held the property jointly even when the same was rented out to the appellant, that as Manzoor Ahmad later on purchased the share of his brother Muhammad Iqbal, so by mere purchasing share of Muhammad Iqbal, he did not attain the character of a new. owner. He further contends that as the very notice under section 13‑A of the Rent Restriction Ordnance was not in accordance with law, so subsequent proceedings initiated on the basis of that notice have got no legal sanctity.

5. A perusal of the record clearly shows that both Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Iqbal purchased the suit property vide sale‑deed, dated 16‑5‑1977 in equal charges. The mere fact that Muhammad Iqbal while renting out the property to Muhammad Amin appellant disclosed himself to be an absolute owner of the same does not mean that Muhammad Iqbal was its absolute owner and Manzoor Ahmad had no right or interest in the suit property. As long as Manzoor Ahmad had not purchased the share of his brother Muhammad Iqbal, he did not serve any notice upon Muhammad A Amin appellant regarding his entitlement over the suit property. Manzoor Ahmad purchased share of Muhammad Iqbal vide sale‑deed, dated 4‑8‑1990 and thereafter served a notice under section 13‑A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance upon Muhammad Amin appellant on 15‑9‑1990. As Manzoor Ahmad had become full‑fledged owner of the property on 4‑9‑1990, so he sent notice under section 13‑A and demanded rent from the tenant/appellant. There is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that notice under section 13‑A could not be served by the landlord/respondent No. l Manzoor Ahmad as he was not a new owner and held half share of the property prior to its purchase. There is no denial of this fact that prior to purchase of share of Muhammad Iqbal vide sale‑deed, dated 4‑8‑1990, he was owner of half share in the suit property and that is why he served a notice on 15‑9‑1990 informing the tenant/appellant that he had become full- fledged owner of the suit property. The appellant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such the trial Court was justified in framing the issue referred above.

6. Since both the Courts below have given their unanimous findings regarding question of fact pertaining to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, so the said findings do not call for any interference at this stage. As the Appellate Court has assessed the evidence produced by the parties before the trial Court, so this Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 100, C.P.C. ought not to assess the same evidence again. Reliance is placed upon Sirbaland v. Allah Loke 1996 SCMR 575.

7. In view of the facts narrated above, the orders passed by the Courts below do not call for any interference. Consequently, S.A.O. fails and is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M‑205/L Appeal dismissed.