1983 PLP 3072 (CLC)

Date of hearing : 13th April, 1983. Appellant above‑named, being aggrieved by order dated 13th May, 1981 of the learned VIII Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi in R. C. No. 4659/78 by which appellant has been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in his occupation to respondent, within a period of 2 months from date of the said order, has preferred the above appeal, on the following facts and grounds :‑ The case of the respondents is, that the appellant is a tenant and occupying the western portion of the house constructed on Plot No. 71/4A, Bihar Colony, Masan Road, Karachi. The appellant was the tenant of the previous landlord at the rate of Rs. 150 exclusive of electric and water charges. The respondents purchased the said portion of the house on 28th May, 1978 from previous landlord and served the appellant with a notice under section 13‑A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, demanding the rent. The appellant was served with the notice, but the appellant did not pay the rent from 28th May, 1978 and thus committed wilful default. It is further stated, that premises ire question are required by the respondents for their personal bona fide use. The appellant in his written objection denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and pleaded, that the appellant was the tenant of one Mst. Aisba Begum the then owner and landlady, who has on 11th April, 1978 agreed to transfer her ownership rights in respect of the disputed premises to the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 15,000 and entered into an agreement, that thereafter Mst. Aisba Begum attempted to transfer the premises to other person, so he filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction bearing No. 1654 of 1978, which is pending in the Court of XXI Civil Judge, Karachi. He had denied that respondents had purchased the house in question from Mst. Aisha Begum and stated that alleged story of sale is after thought by Mst. Aisha Begum, after the appellant had filed the suit. He has also disputed the rate of rent and had also denied the service of notice. He also pleaded that be is a bona fide purchaser of the premises. He had denied all the other asser tion of the respondents. The learned Rent Controller taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it decided Issue No. I against the appellant and passed impugned order dated 13th May, 1981 and consequently appellant has filed the above appeal, on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. The learned Advocate in support of the above appeal submitted as under :‑ (a) That learned Rent Controller erred in acting upon unregistered sale agreement and held respondent to be landlord of the premises, in spite of the fact that appellant bad filed Suit No. 1654/78 for declaration and injunction in respect of the demised premises against Mst. Aisha Begum, the owner of the premises in question. (b) That learned Rent Controller erred in coming to conclusion that notice under section 13‑A of Rent Ordinance was duly served on appellant, in spite of appellant having denied the said fact. (c) That learned Rent Controller without cogent evidence on record come to conclusion, that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, in the absence of legal evidence on record. In support of above contentions, the learned Advocate for appellant relied upon cases reported in P L D 1972 S C 251, P L D 196, Kar. 73 and P~L D 1964 Pesh. 159 and submitted that impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned Advocate for respondent on the other hand submitted that the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller is based on evidence adduced by parties, on the basis of which learned Rent Controller for cogent reasons held that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the R & P of the learned trial Court and impugned order and cases cited by the learned Advocate for appellant before me. I find that learned Rent Controller on the basis of Exh. 5‑L (PTI) Exh. 5‑D and E. (tax payment receipts) and sale agreement dated 28th May, 1978 Ex‑h. 5‑B held that respondent had agreed to purchase the disputed premises from Mst. Aisha Begum for consideration of Rs. 30,000 and thereafter by notice under section 13‑A Exh. 5‑F registered A/D receipt Exh. 5‑G and registry receipt Exh. 5‑H held, that respondent after acquiring the disputed premises gave legal notice to the appellant for change of ownership, but admittedly appellant did not reply to the said notice and since admittedly appellant was tenant of Mst. Aisha Begum, he became the tenant of respondent in accordance with law. The contention of the learned Advocate, that since no registered sale deed was executed by Mst. Aisha Begum in favour of respondent, there was no legal transfer of ownership in favour of respondent and as such conclusion of the learned trial Court, which flow from this cannot be sustained. I find no force in this contention of the learned Advocate. It may be noted that in para. I1 of Suit No. 1654/78 filed by the appellant against Mst. Aisha Begum, which is on record of learned Rent Controller, appellant has admitted, that as property was situated in Bihar Colony, the same could not be transferred by registered sale‑decd and consequently appellant did not pray for specific performance of his alleged oral sale agreement. Further, it is admitted position, that in suit No. 1654/78 Mst. Aisha Begum confirmed, that she had sold the premises to respondents for valuable consideration and as such respondents become landlord of the premises in question and entitled to recover rents of the said premises, on account of sale transaction between them and Mst. Aisha Begum. In view of this respondents on basis of notice given to appellant under section 13‑A of Ordinance, become entitled to collect rents from appellant. The only contention of appellant, which now requires consideration is whether notice Exh. 5‑F was duly received by appellant, vide A/D receipt Exh. 5‑G as alleged by respondent. It is admitted position that notice was properly addressed and sent to proper address and was received by someone. Appellant has denied his sig natures on the same and stated as .respondent did not examine postman, his word should have been preferred to that of respondent. I have compared the signature of appellant on Exh. 5‑G and on above appeal and his written statement filed before the learned trial Court. I find both c these admitted signatures of appellant to tally with signatures 'on A/D Exh. 5‑G and as such non‑examination of postman by itself does not establish contention of the appellant, that the said notice was not served on him. It was not necessary fur respondents to prove their legal owner ship of disputed premises, as they established that they were landlords of the premises and on account of sale agreement between them and Mst. Aisha, they were entitled to recover rents from appellant. In view of my above conclusions I see no reason to disagree with the, conclusions and findings of the learned Rent Controller mentioned in impugned order dated 13th May, 1981, which are based on cogent reasons Cases cited by learned counsel for appellant are based on different facts and as such not applicable to present case. Therefore, I find no merits in the above appeal, which is consequently E dismissed, with no orders as to costs. However, I allow appellant time upto Ist August, 1983 to vacate the premises in his occupation and hand over its vacant possession to respondents. M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.