1989 PLP 3170 (MLD)

Muhammad Siddique Butt for Respondent. Dates of hearing: 17th October and 6th November of 1988. This is an appeal from an order of the Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantonment, dated 4-3-1987, directing the eviction of Muhammad Siddique, appellant, under section 17, subsection (9) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963.

2. Mst. Fatima Begum, respondent, applied for the eviction of the appellant, Muhammad Siddique, from the house in dispute on the ground that she required the house in good faith for her own use. It was said that Mst. Fatima Begum, respondent, had purchased the house from its previous owners, Mst. Khurshid Begum and others, by means of a deed of sale, dated 24-11-1984; that the appellant had been in possession of the house as tenant and that she was living with her parents and required the house in question in good faith for her own residence. The appellant contested the application by filing a written statement; he denied that he was in possession of the house as a tenant or that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties.

3. The learned Rent Controller tried as preliminary issue the question whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The facts as they emerged from the evidence led before him were that the house in dispute was evacuee property; that a P.T.O. had been issued in favour of one Mst. Aisha in the year 1961; that Mst. Aisha died on 30-1-1964 and that the appellant had then remained in possession of the house as an heir of Mst. Aisha. The evidence was that he was a grandson of Mst. Aisha. It also appears from the evidence that as an heir of Mst. Aisha, the appellant had entered into an agreement of association with Muhammad Ibrahim, predecessor-in-interest of Mst. Khurshid Begum etc. and. that the T.O. was issued in favour of Mst. Khurshid Begum and others in the year 1983.

4. The learned Rent Controller observed that admittedly, Mst. Fatima Begum had purchased the house in dispute from Mst. Khurshid Begum and others and "the sale-deed is still operative and has not been cancelled by the Civil Court"; that there was no document of title in favour of the appellant and that "their claim that they are owners in possession of the house cannot be accepted in the absence of any documentary evidence". He, thus, concluded that "the petitioner is the owner/landlady and the respondent is a tenant in the house and the relationship of landlady and tenant exists between the parties". Having reached that conclusion, the learned Rent Controller directed the appellant to deposit Rs.1,875 as arrears of rent for the period from 1-11-1984 to 30-11-1986 at the rate of Rs.75 per month by or before 21-1-1987. He also framed the issue whether the respondent required the property in dispute for her own use in good faith. The appellant deposited Rs.1,800 before 21-1-1987. The learned Rent Controller, therefore, found that the appellant had failed to comply with his order and ordered his eviction under section 17, subsection (9) of the Act.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to make three points; two of them can be dealt with at once. The first is that the sale-deed in favour of Mst. Fatima Begum was registered on 24-11-1984 and the learned Rent Controller was, therefore, in error in directing the payment of rent with effect from 1-11-1984 and the second is that as the only ground on which the eviction was sought being the ground of personal requirement section 17, subsection (8) of the Act did not apply. Neither of these contentions is entitled to succeed. True that the sale-deed in favour of Mst. Fatima Begum had been registered on 24-11-1984 but it had been executed on 21-10-1984 and by section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, it operated not from the date of its registration but from the date of its execution. Section 17, subsection (8) requires the Controller "on the first hearing of proceeding under this section or as soon thereafter as may be but before the issues are framed, to direct the tenant to deposit in his office before a specified date all the rent due from him". It is plain that subsection (8) makes no distinction between the case in which the eviction is sought on ground of personal requirement and the case in which the eviction is sought on other grounds. The learned Rent Controller was, therefore right in directing the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent as he did.

6. The third contention relates to the finding of the learned Rent Controller that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Now the appellant's position was either that of a statutory tenant or that of a contractual tenant. As seen above, Mst. Aisha, in whose favour the P.T.O. was issued in the year 1961 (or 1963), died on 30-1-1964. Thereafter the appellant's possession of the house became that of an owner, as an heir of Mst. Aisha. The exact date of the agreement of association between the appellant and Muhammad Ibrahim is not known; what is known is that the T.O. was issued in favour of Mst. Khurshid Begum and others, successors-in-interest of Muhammad Ibrahim in the year 1983. The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, by section 30 whereof, a person in possession of the property transferred to another became a statutory tenant, was repealed in the year 1974 and this raises the question whether at the date of the T.O. in favour of Mst. Khurshid Begum and others in the year 1983, Muhammad Siddique, appellant's position was that of a tenant by operation of section 30 of the Repealed Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent states that at one stage, the P.T.O. in favour of Mst. Aisha was cancelled on account of her failure to pay the transfer price; according to him, the house in question had been resumed by the Government on 30-10-1968 but later, on the application of the appellant that he was ready to pay the transfer price, the house was allowed to be transferred to Muhammad Ibrahim, with whom Muhammad Siddique, appellant, had entered into an agreement of association. While entering into the agreement of association with Muhammad Ibrahim, the appellant had, it is further stated, agreed that he would pay rent to Muhammad Ibrahim and remain in possession of the house as his tenant.

8. For these reasons, I am of the view that further inquiry into the status of the appellant is necessary. As that will entail the leading of oral and documentary evidence, I accept the appeal, set aside the order in question and send the case back to the learned Rent Controller for fresh decision after providing opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence. The parties shall appear before the learned Rent Controller on 22-11-1988. M.Y.H./M-1208/L Case remanded.