1983 C I (PLP)

(b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction, Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑ Ss. 13 (6) & 15 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30‑Statutory tenancy‑‑Property transferred to respondent an open plot Agreement of tenancy not existing between parties‑Tenancy pressed into service on basis of provisions of S. 30 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. 1958

Transfer of open plot by itself not creating tenancy in favour of occupant‑‑Order of Rent Controller to deposit rent under S. 13 (6). held, without jurisdiction. S. Madad All Shah for Appellant. S. Qutbuddln for Respondent. Date of hearing p 17th October, 1982. This second rent appeal is directed against the order of 1st Addl. District Judge, Hyderabad, rejecting the appeal of appellant /tenant against the order of Rent Controller striking off' his defence in rent case No. 253/74.

2. The admitted position on record is that the two open plots bearing Nos. .Gs; 2457/ 11 and L1/2457j t2, situated at Katchi Para, Rhulelipar Hyder abad, were transferred to the respondent under P. T. D. No. 20582 dated 8th September, 1970 and F. T. D. No. 20583 dated 8th September, 1970. After transfer of the aforesaid plots the respondent served notices on the appellant calling upon them to pay the rent but these notices were refused by the opponent and, therefore, application for ejectment was filed under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant before the Rent Controller the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied and it was also contended that the application was not main tainable according to law. The Rent Controller, framed the preliminary issue with regard to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and on the basis of the P. T. D. produced held that the relationship between the parties is that ='f landlord and tenant within the meaning of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Thereafter the Rent Controller passed an order under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, directing the appellant to deposit monthly rent in Court. No rent was at all deposited by the appellant pursuant to the above order, with the result that the defence of the appellant was struck off'. On appeal the 1st Addl. District .fudge, Hyderabad, concurred with the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Mr. Syed Madad Ali Shah, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order directing the tenant /appellant to deposit the rent under section 13 (6) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1359 was an order without jurisdic tion as neither there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties under section 30 of the D. P. Act as held by the two Courts below nor the application itself was maintainable under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, provides that a tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of decree passed before or after the commence ment of this Ordinance or otherwise arid whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this section. Both the words building' and 'rented land' are defined in the Ordinance. Section 2 (f) of the Ordinance, defines the rented land as meaning a land let out separately for the purposes of being used principally for business or trade. The contention of the respondent before the Rent Controller was that since the plots in question. have been trans ferred to them under the provisions of Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, therefore, by virtue of section 30 of the Act, the occupant became the tenant of the respondent. Section 30 of the D. P. Act, provides that where any person is in possession of an evacuee house or shop or any industrial concern or a Cinema house or a Printing Press which is transferred to arty other person under the provi sions of this Act then notwithstanding anything contained in any other law such person shall be deemed to be the tenant of the transferee on the same terms and conditions as to payment of rent or otherwise on which he held it immediately before the transfer. A plain reading of section 30 will show that no tenancy as such is created in favour of person in occupation of a plot or building site. It is not disputed that the property which was transferred to the respondent under an open public auction was an open plot/building site. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant rightly contended that no statutory tenancy was created in favour of the appellant by virtue of transfer of plots in favour of respondent. The mere fact that the plot has been transferred in favour of the respondent would not make the occupant a tenant of the transferee unless the tenant acknowledges the transferee as landlord. In the present case in view of the categorical denial by the appellant in the rent proceedings that they were not the tenant of the respondents it soul a not be held that they became the tenants of the respondent by virture of such transfer. It has been consistently agitated by the appellant before the Courts below as well as in the present appeal that the appellants are not the tenants of the transferee respondent/landlord. In fact it is contended that no tenancy at all was created in favour of the appellant by virtue of transfer of the plot in favour of the respondent. In view of this contention raised I bold that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Apart from it, it is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the application for ejectment was not maintainable as the property was never let out as rented land within the, meaning of the West Pakistan Urban Restriction Ordinance, 1959. It is not disputed that the property transferred to the respondent was an open plot as is evident by the P. T. D. issued in favour of the respondent. There is, admittedly, no agreement of tenancy between the parties t show that the plot was let out to the appellant for the purposes of carrying out any commercial activities. The tenancy in favour of the appel lant was pressed into service on the basis of provisions of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. & Rehb.) Act, 1958. As I have already held that no tenancy is created in favour of person occupying the plot by virtue of transfer of such plot in favour of the other person, therefore, in my view no statutory tenancy was created in favour of the appellant. In these circumstances, the order of the Rent Controller, directing the appellant to deposit rent in Court under section 13(6) was an order wholly without jurisdiction as there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the application itself was not maintainable as the plot was never let out or rented out to the appellant as "rented land" as defined within the meaning of Ordinance. I accordingly set aside the orders of two Courts below and dismiss the application for ejectment filed by the respondent against the appellants as their tenant, There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case M. A. K. Appeal allowed.