Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal from Order No. 368 of 1965, decided on 7th July 1967.

S. 30 (3) (ii) read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13 (2) (ii) (a)‑Ground of sub‑letting for purpose of securing ejectment of tenant can be availed of only "if sub‑letting takes place after transfer" of property, by Settlement Authorities to person seeking ejectment.

S. 30 (1) proviso (a) (unamended)"Latest assessment" made by a Municipality‑Expression contemplates fresh assessment on transfer of house or in anticipation of transfer Transferee should be given benefit of fresh rental assessment.

The unamended proviso was, designed to secure two objects, that is, firstly, that the rental values of the properties transferred under the Act should be assessed afresh by the Municipalities or Local Authorities, and, secondly, that the benefit of fresh rental assessment should be given to the transferees. The expression "latest assessment" in the unamended proviso would, therefore, seem to refer to the rental assessment made by a Municipality or a Local Authority on transfer, or in anticipation of transfer of a property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.

S. 30(1) proviso (a) (unamended) "Latest assessment of Municipality"‑Certificate of Chief Officer of Municipality raising assessment from Rs. 20 as in register of assessment to Rs. 35 not a valid assessment having been made without notice to occupant‑First assessment relateable to date of transfer (auction) of property to be treated as "latest assessment".

S. 30(1) proviso (a) (unamended) Transferee not mentioning, in notice, rate of rent at time of transfer or rate of rent according to latest assessment‑Occupant not put on enquiry as to what such rate was‑Need only pay or tender rent at rate which he was paying immediately before transfer‑[Mian Rehmat Ali v. Khadeja Hakeem P L D 1967 Lah.29 ref.].

Ch. G. A. Gondal for Appellant.

S. M. Masud for Respondents.

Dates of hearing: 27th and 28th April 1967.

This is a Second Appeal under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, from the order dated 30‑4‑1965 of the Additional District Judge, Lyallpur, acting as First Appellate Authority under the Ordinance.

2. The material facts are these. The respondents are in occupation as tenants of shop No. 203‑A, Bazar Kalan, Gojra, District Lyallpur. This shop was purchased by the appellant on 21‑6‑1960 at an auction held by the Settlement Authorities. A Provisional Transfer Order was issued to the appellant on 9th November 1960 and on 9‑1‑1962 the appellant sent notice Exh. P/A to the respondents under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, demanding payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 35 per month from 21‑6‑60. Rent at this rate was claimed to be in accordance with the latest Municipal assessment for the year 1961‑62. The appellant then brought eviction proceedings against the respondents on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub‑letting of the shop by the respondent No. 1 to the respondent No. 2. The respon dents denied sub‑letting and pleaded that the appellant bad refused to accept rent at Rs. 20.00 per month remitted by money orders, and that this rate was in fact the rate assessed by the Municipal Committee for the year 1961‑62.

3. The following issues were framed by the Rent Controller on the pleadings of the parties:‑---

"(1) Whether the respondent is a defaulter

(2) Whether respondent No. 1 has sub‑let the property in dispute is favour of respondent No. 2

(3) Is the petitioner entitled to receive rent of this property at the rate of Rs. 35.00 per mensem

(4) Relief."

The Rent Controller's findings on all these issues were in favour of the appellant and, consequently, the respondents were directed to put the appellant in possession of the premises. But these findings were upset by the Additional District Judge in the first appeal preferred by the respondents, in which it was held that the rent of shop up to the time of its transfer to the appellant was Rs. 8.00 per month, but was enhanced to Rs. 20.00 by the Municipal assessment for the year 1951‑62 and, further, that the assessment of rent of Rs. 35.00 per month was made invalidly by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Committee on the appellant's own application after the rent had already been assessed at Rs. 20.00 per month. The appellant was further found to have failed to establish sub‑letting and it was held that the respondent No. 2 had in fact been inducted in the shop as partner of respon dent No. 1. On these conclusions, the order of the Rent Controller was set aside and the appellant's application for the respondents' eviction was dismissed.

4. The landlord has now come in this Second Appeal and has urged that the rental assessment of Rs. 35.00 being in accordance with the latest Municipal assessment, the respondents should be deemed to have made a default in the payment of the rent in that they failed to tender rent at this rate on receipt of the notice of demand. It is further argued that the First Appellate Authority has taken an erroneous view of the evidence with regard to sub‑letting, which should be held to have been proved on the material on record.

5. The contention with regard to sub‑letting may first be disposed of. Under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, an occupant of a property transferred under this Act becomes statutory tenant of the property and is protected against eviction for a term of years varying with the nature of the property. But this protection is lost if the tenant sub‑lets or parts with possession of this property after its transfer to the transferee. The ground of sub‑letting pi would, therefore, be available for eviction only if the property has been sub‑let after its transfer to the appellant. The auction sale was held on 21‑6‑1960, and the Provisional Transfer Order was issued on 9‑11‑1960. But the appellant has failed to show that the respondent Muhammad Sharif was inducted into the shop as sub‑tenant after either of these dates. The respondents, on the other hand, have produced a partnership deed Exh. R/1, executed by the respondents on 2‑3‑1954, showing the admission of respondent No. 2 as partner in the respondent No. 1's business. The appellant has relied on a statement made in the Municipal Assessment Register for the year 1960‑61 showing the respondent No. 2 to be in occupation of the shop. But this occupation could be consistent with the respondents partnership dating from 1954. Assuming, however, that this occupation of the respondent No. 2 was as sub‑lessee, then it has further to be shown that the sub lease was effected after transfer of the shop to the appellant. But there is no evidence whatsoever on this point, and in the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the First Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the ground of sub‑letting for the purpose of the respondent's eviction.

6. Turning to the question of default, the appellant's learned counsel argued that the latest Municipal assessment was for the year 1961‑62 and under it the rent of the shop was Rs. 35.00, but that respondents tendered rent is the first instance at Rs. 8.00 per month, and after they received notice under section 30, at Rs. 20.00 per month, and that this constitutes default in payment of rent, which would deprive the respondents of the statutory protection against eviction.

7. Under section 30(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compen sation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, a person in posses sion of a property transferred under this Act becomes a statutory tenant of the property on the same terms and conditions as to payment of rent or otherwise on which he held the property immediately before transfer, But proviso (a) to this section enables the transferee to charge rent on the basis of the latest assessment carried out by the Municipality or a Local Authority for other properties in the locality generally. The question of this "latest assessment" has been argued at great length. It is said that the word "latest" means "last" or "most recently". But what is the most recent assessment in accordance wherewith the tenant is required to tender rent to the transferee Is the latest assessment relatable to the date of the transfer of the property or the date of demand for payment of rent made under section 30 (3) of the Act, or does the expression relate to the period for which rent is claimed, in which case every annual assessment for the succeeding year

8. The requirement that the tenant should pay rent in accordance with the latest municipal assessment is contained in the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 30, which prescribes that the person in possession of the transferred property should be deemed to be a tenant on the same terms and conditions as to payment of rent or otherwise on which the property was held immediately before its transfer. Before its amendment by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) (Second Amendment) Act, 1963 (XIX of 1963), this proviso read as: "It shall be lawful for the transferee to charge rent on the basis of the latest assessment of the Municipality or Local Authority as the case may be". The Amendment Act, which took effect from 3‑9‑1963, introduced a change by which latest assessment was made to refer to the assessments carried out by the Municipality or the Local Authority for other properties in the locality generally. This amendment would not, however, affect the present case, as the property herein was auctioned on 21‑6‑1960 and was provisionally transferred to the appellant on 9th November 1960. The notice of demand under section 30 of the Act was given on 9‑1‑1962. The liability of the tenant to tender rent had already arisen before the amendment of the first proviso of section 30 (1) of the Act. I would think that the proviso, as it originally stood, contemplated or intended that properties transferred under the Act should be assessed to current rental value afresh by the Municipalities or the Local Authorities, as the rents of such properties had continued to be paid to the rents in accordance with the old assessments, which in most cases were the assessmei5ts of 1946‑47. Because these properties had vested in the Custodian they were not subjected to periodical rental valuations and, therefore, the rents were grossly out of tune with the rental values which had come about to prevail by the time the properties started to be transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The unamended proviso was, therefore, designed to secure two objects, that is, firstly, that the rental values of the properties transferred under the Act should be assessed afresh by the' Municipalities or Local Authorities, and, secondly, that the benefit of fresh rental assessments should be given to the transferees. The expression "latest assessment" in the unamended proviso would, therefore, seem to refer to the rental assessment made by a Municipality or a Local Authority on transfer, or in anticipation of transfer of a property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.

9. The question then arises which is the first assessment made by the Municipality of Gojra on or after the transfer of the disputed shop to the appellant. This assessment is the assess ment made by the Municipality for the year 1960‑61, which appears to have been carried out after the auction sale held on 21‑6‑1960. This assessment was produced by the respondents as Exh. R/3, and according to it the rental value of the shop is Rs. 20.00 per month. The same assessment continued for the year 1961‑62 also, as shown by the extract from Municipal register Exh. P/6. But the appellant contends that the assessment for 1961‑62, that is, from 1‑7‑1961 to 30‑6‑1962 was increased to Rs. 35.00 per month. This increase is disputed by the respon dents. As shown by Exh. P/6, the assessment for 1961‑62 was Rs. 20.00 but the appellant has produced another document, Exh. P/7, which is an application by him to the Chief Officer of the Municipality requesting for a certificate with regard to the rental assessment for the year 1961‑62. This application is dated 15‑6‑1962 and contains the following endorsement of the Chief Officer:--

"Returned in original with the remarks that Muhammad Sharif is an occupant of shop No. P‑203‑A, belonging to Muhammad Musa which is situated in Main Bazar Gojra. The rent assessed for the year 1961‑62 (1‑7‑61 to 30‑6‑62) is Rs. 35 per month."

But this endorsement is contrary to the contents of the assessment register of the Municipality, from which an extract has been produced as Exh. P/6 showing the rental assessment for this very period as Rs. 20.00. It has not been explained as to under what circumstances the Chief Officer gave this certificate, which, on the face, is quite different from the Municipality's own register of assessments. If the endorsement of the Chief Officer is to the construed as an order increasing the assessment to Rs. 35.00 per month for the year 1961‑62, then it had to be shown that the occupant of the shop had notice that the assessment was proposed to be increased to Rs. 35.00 per month. But no evidence has come that any such notice was given to the respondents. It has also not been shown as to what was the material before the Chief Officer on the basis of which he decided to increase the assessment to Rs. 35.00, as against Rs. 20.00 previously assessed by the Municipality. Exh. P/7, cannot, therefore, be treated as a valid assessment of rent by the Gojra Municipality and this being so, the assessment of Rs. 35.00 per month would not be the latest municipal assessment. Assuming that this is a valid assessment, even then it cannot operate as the "latest assessment" within the meaning of proviso (a) to section 30 (1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. This assessment followed the assessment for the period from 1‑7‑1960 to 30‑6‑1961. The property was auctioned on 21‑6‑1960 and, there fore, it is the first assessment which should be treated as the "latest assessment", latest in the sense that it is relatable to the date of transfer of the property to the appellant. This latest assessment fixes the rental value of the shop at Rs. 20.00 per month and it is at this rate that the respondents were liable to pay rent to the appellant.

10. It has now to be seen whether the respondents failed to tender rent at Rs. 20.00 per month to the appellant. The appellant obtained the Provisional Transfer Order on 9‑11‑1960 and, therefore, became entitled to receive rent as from this date. On 15‑5‑1960, the respondents remitted Rs. 80.00 by money order Exh. R/,6. On 8‑8‑1961, the respondents remitted by money order, Exh. R/5, another sum of Rs. 96.00. Both these money orders were refused by the appellant. The total amount of these money orders comes to Rs. 176.00, whereas the rent for the period from 9‑11‑1960, to 8‑8‑1961, at Rs. 20.00 per month, would come to Rs. 180.00. Thus, even before the notice of demand was sent under section 30, the respondents tendered rent at nearly Rs. 20.00 per month. The tender of this rent was refused by the appellant, who demanded rent at the rate of Rs. 35.00 per month. It is contended that the tender of rent by money orders Exhs. R/5, R/6 and R/7 was shown in the money orders themselves to be at the rate of Rs. 8.00 per month, and the appellant's learned counsel says that tender at this rate, even after receipt of the notice of demand under section 30, is not tender of due rent, and the respondents should, therefore, be deemed to have made default in payment of rent. But as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Mian Rehmat Ali v. Khadeja Hukeem (P L D 1967 Lah. 29), if the landlord does not mention the rate of rent at the time of transfer or the rate of rent according to the latest assessment, then the tenant is not placed on enquiry to find out as to what the latest assessment is, and he need only pay or tender the rent due at the rate which he was paying immediately before the transfer. The notice under section 30 (Exh. P/A) sent on 9‑1‑1962 demanded rent at the rate of Rs. 35.00 per month, but this was not the rent according to the latest assessment under which rental value was Rs. 20.00. The appellant failed to mention this rental value in the notice. The respondents were, therefore, at liberty to tender rent at Rs. 8.00 per month and having done so, they cannot be deemed to be in default.

11. For the above reasons, I am of the view that the First Appellate Authority acted properly in accepting the respondents appeal and rejecting the application for eviction. I would, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs.

A. H, Appeal dismissed,

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.