2013 PLP 1687 (CLD)

KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.

The petitioner impugns the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby C.P. No.S-108 of 2006 filed by him was dismissed while maintaining the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court.

2. Brief facts to decide the listed petition are that respondent No.1 filed ejectment application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the petitioner alleging therein that he (respondent No.1) is the true and lawful owner/landlord in respect of the property in question whereas, the petitioner is the tenant in the premises at the rate of Rs.550 p.m. It is alleged in the ejectment application that the respondent purchased the property from the previous owner/landlord namely Messrs Printoff Printers and Publisher Private Limited vide conveyance deed dated 13th February, 1997. The property was duly transferred/ mutated in the name of the respondent in the record of the society and Ministry of Works Islamabad. The respondent, thereafter, through notice dated 20-2-1997 under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance requested the petitioner to pay rent to the respondent at the previous rate with effect from March, 1997 but the petitioner failed to pay the same. The respondent filed application for ejectment and copy of registered conveyance deed was also annexed.

3. The petitioner filed written statement alleging that Messrs Printoff Printers and Publisher Private Limited was officially dissolved on 4-12-1982 so how the respondent can obtain conveyance deed from Private Limited Company on 13-2-1997 as alleged. It is further stated that the petitioner filed Suit No.692 of 2002 and Suit No.1200 of 2002 before the High Court of Sindh at Karachi seeking declaration that the respondent is not the landlord/owner of the petitioner and that the respondent has obtained conveyance deed fraudulently in his favour as such the same is void document.

4. After framing the issues, recording the evidence, the Rent Controller vide order dated 27-3-2004, decided the issue relating to the relationship of landlord and tenant, in affirmative and directed the petitioner to vacate and hand over physical possession of the premises in question within 60 days from the date of the said order.

5. Against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Karachi East, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 24-12-2005. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said judgment, filed petition before the High Court of Sindh, Karachi which also met the same fate. Hence, the listed petition for leave to appeal.

6. Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner has contended that under section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, only a living person which includes the company, can transfer the property and since the property in question was transferred through registered conveyance deed, after the dissolution of this company, the conveyance deed is a void document and the respondent cannot be claimed to be landlord/owner and as such the petitioner is not bound to tender rent to the respondent. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the cases of Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another (1983 SCMR 1064), Abdul Hameed Naz and others v. Mst. Razia Begum Awan and others, (1991 SCMR 1376) and Muhammad Aslam and others v. Senior Superintendent of Police, Abbottabad and others (1998 MLD 1737).

7. We have taken into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the judgments of the Courts below as well as perused the available record. From the perusal whereof, it appears that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter including the evidence on record, Registered Conveyance Deed, Release Deed, Transfer Order by the Society who is the lessor of the property, Mutation Letter and Form P.T.I., rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent on the basis of the registered conveyance deed, served a notice under section 18 of the Sindh Premises Ordinance requesting the petitioner to tender the future rent to him which admittedly till date the petitioner has not tendered either to the respondent or deposited in the name of the respondent in Court, and as such committed default and liable to be ejected.

8. As regards the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged sale deed in favour of the respondent, is a void document, we are refrain to comment upon it as apparently his suits are pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction where such issues can be answered and any finding at this stage may cause prejudice to the interest of either of the parties.

9. In reply to our query whether the title of the petitioner has been questioned by any one of the share holders of the dissolved company, the learned counsel replied in negative. In view of the above and the dictum laid down by this Court in the case of Kassim and another v. S. Rahim Shah (1990 SCMR 647), we are of the view that the concurrent findings of the Courts below does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, thus no interference is called for by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. The listed petition is, therefore, dismissed being without merit and leave to appeal is refused. MWA/S-19/SC Petition dismissed.