Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.869 of 1983, decided on 16th March 1986.

‑‑‑Ss.18 lk 21(1)‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑Existence of‑ .:.n Landlord being transferee of property in dispute giving sufficient detail of transfer in his favour in legal notice to tenant under S.18 of Ordinance XVII of ‑1979‑‑Tenant neither offered to pay rent nor made enquiries about title of landlord in respect of property and continued to deny relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑Title of landlord in respect of property having been proved by sufficient proof on record, Rent Controller, held, was justified to conclude that relationship of landlord and tenant between parties had existed and tenant had failed to make payment of rent to landlord.

Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Ilyas 1979 C L C 720 and Mrs. K. Kazim v. Syed Kamaluddin 1982 S C M R 576 ref.

Sulleman Kassim for Appellants.

Rehmat Illahi for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 16th March, 1986.

This appeal is directed against the order of ejectment issued by VIIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, dated 13‑10‑1983. The relevant facts are that, on 5‑12‑1977, the respondents had purchased property on Plot No.O.T. 3/101‑104/133, Old Town Quarters, Karachi. The appellant was one of the tenants of a shop in the said premises at Rs.300 per month. The respondent issued notice of transfer under section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, to the appellant to pay the rent to him from 5th December, 1977. The respondent clearly disclosed in the said notice that he had filed Suit No.225 of 1975, which was decreed by the High Court, and that the Nazir of the High Court had executed a sale‑deed in his favour on 5‑12‑1977. The appellant replied on 31‑12‑1979 by stating that it was trust property, and that he had offered the rent to the Evacuee Property Trust/Board, but they had accepted rent ‑up to 1975, and thereafter, they had refused to accept the rent and, therefore, he had deposited the same with the Rent Controller. The respondent again wrote to the appellant on 26‑1‑1980, and asserted that the documents of title had been shown to the appellant, and that the status of the property had been declared by the Evacuee Trust Board as well, and the transfer order made in favour of the previous owner had been validated.'

The appellant, in spite of that, did not pay the rent to the respondent, and continued to deposit the same with the Rent Controller. On 19‑7‑1980, the present ejectment application was filed on the ground of non‑payment of rent. The appellant resisted the same again on the ground that it was a trust property. The Rent Controller framed the issues, whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant, and whether the default had been committed or not. Mr. Sulleman Kassim has submitted that the appellant had deposited rent with the Rent Controller, and therefore, the ejectment should not have been granted. He has relied upon Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Ilyas 1979 C L C 720 which is Judgment by a Honourable Judge of this Court, where it was observed that, if the tenant had sought the documents of title from the transferee landlord and the landlord had failed to show the same, or, supply copy, then the tenant was justified in depositing the rent in the name of the previous landlord. Mr. Rehmat Illahi, on the other hand, relied upon Mrs. K . Kazim v . Syed Kamaluddin 1982 S C M R 576, which is a judgment of the Supreme Court, where it has been held that, if the landlord has given the details in respect of the registration in his favour in the notice under section 13‑A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, then it was a sufficient notice and created the relationship of landlord and tenant. I find from the first notice given by the respondent on 4‑12‑1979 that he had given sufficient details in respect of the transfer of the property, and had given number of the suit, which he had filed in the High Court, and therefore, even if the appellant had any doubt in respect of the title of the respondent, he could have easily made enquiries from the High Court, and could have ascertained from it, whether the position taken by the respondent was correct or not. It, however, appears to me that the appellant adopted a very unreasonable attitude, and, instead of making an enquiry from this Court, had sent a strange reply on 31‑12‑1979, and continued saying that it was an Evacuee Trust Property. To say the least, it was very unfair on the part of the appellant. He has unnecessarily incurred the risk of ejectment and has, in fact, put the respondent to a great deal of torture in this mattter.

It is an admitted position that the appellant never offered to pay rent to the respondent, never made enquiries from the High Court about the title of the property, and, even in the written statement, he continued harping on the plea that the property was of the Evacuee Trust Board. The deposit of rent in the name of the Evacuee Property Trust Board, who had refused to accept any rent from the appellant after 1975 was completely unjustified in the circumstances of this case, and the appellant cannot be allowed any latitude on that ground. It, therefore, appears clear to me that the Rent Cotnroller was quite justified in coming to the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and A tenant between the parties, and that the appellant had failed to make payment of rent to the respondent.

I have not referred to the evidence in detail, which has been led by the parties, because I am quite clear in my mind that the three notices exchanged between them are sufficient to establish the lega position. It is needless to say that the respondent had proved his title in respect of the said property by producing the order of the High Court in Suit No.225 of 1975, and the order of the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, dated 14‑3‑1975, and finally a photostat copy of the sale‑deed executed by the Nazir in favour of the respondent. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, with the consent of Mr.1 Rehmat Illahi, I will grant six months' time to the appellant to vacate the premises in question, subject to the deposit of the rent in this Court regularly by the 10th of the next month. Direct writ of possession shall be issued against the appellant without notice to him after expiry of six months from today, but it can be issued even earlier, in case the appellant fails to deposit the rent.

H.B.T. 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.