Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.1045 of 1984, decided on 8th April, 1987.

‑‑‑S.15‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.30‑‑Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975), S.10‑‑Ejectment‑‑Unauthorized sub‑lettee of tenant‑ Liability to ejectment‑‑Landlord purchasing premises by registered sale‑deed‑‑Transfer of property in favour of such landlord approved by Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board and saved by S.10 of Act XIII of 1975‑‑Landlord serving notice on statutory tenant of property about factum of acquisition of ownership rights‑‑In ejectment proceedings, thereafter, statutory tenant taking plea that she had transferred tenancy of premises to person at present in occupation thereof‑‑Statutory tenant and transferee thereof having not produced an allotment order conferring tenancy on person in occupation of premises‑‑Mere receipt of rent by Evacuee Trust Department from such transferee of tenancy, held, would not prove tenancy thereof in his favour because there was no estoppel against statute and statutory bodies on account of mere receipts of rent‑‑Statutory tenant had no right to transfer the same and transferee at the most was the unauthorised sub‑tenant and was liable to ejectment in execution of order passed against statutory tenant.

‑‑‑Ss.141 & 151‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.21‑ Appeal against rejection of objection petition of intervenor in execution proceedings and against his ejectment from premises alongwith application for restoration of possession‑‑Competency of‑‑Rent Controller, held, could not entertain objections in a case where objector claimed tenancy right in his favour in the execution of eviction order‑‑Scope of execution proceedings under Ordinance XVII of 1979 being very much limited, Rent Controller could not entertain objections filed by intervenor who was claiming tenancy rights in his favour as the same would be a question foreign to rent proceedings‑‑Appeal against ejectment and dismissal of objection petition being devoid of merit was dismissed alongwith application for restoration of possession by High Court.

Munawar Malik for Appellants.

Mr. Sadiq for Respondent No.l.

Respondent No.2 (absent).

Date of hearing: 8th April, 1987.

This appeal is directed against the order of a Rent Controller Karachi dated 20‑8‑1984, whereby he dismissed an application under section 151 read with section 141, C.P.C. filed by the appellants.

The facts giving rise to this case are that the respondent No.l Abdul Razzak is the landlord of the disputed property having purchased the same from its transferee under the Settlement Laws on 1‑5‑1976. The opponent Mst. Shamim Akhtar was stated to be the tenant in respect of the disputed premises and a rent of Rs.140 per month was claimed from her. Usual notice under section 30, D.P. (CLR) Act was served on Mst. Shamim Akhtar, and on her failure to pay or tender the rent an ejectment case was filed before the learned Rent Controller. She filed written statement in which she denied that the respondent No.l was the owner and landlord. She alleged that the property was an Evacuee Trust Property and that she was not a tenant of the said premises because she had transferred the tenancy thereof to Mst. Phoolan Bai on 21‑9‑1976. The learned Rent Controller framed an issue as to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On, the basis of the evidence led by the respondent, the learned Rent Controller found the issue in his favour and ordered ejectment of Mst. Shamim Akhtar. Consequently the said ejectment order was enforced by the Court with the aid of police and Mst. Phoolan Bai who was in possession of the premises was ejected therefrom in October, 1981. The appellants filed a writ petition in this Court but the same was dismissed. Hence they have filed this application under section 151 read with section 141, C . P . C .

The learned Rent Controller dismissed the said application and against the said dismissal order this appeal has been filed.

I have heard Mr. Munawar Malik, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate for the respondent No.l. The respondent No.l has admittedly purchased We disputed property by registered sale‑deed dated 5‑9‑1979, from Shujauddin and Muhammad Ibrahim to whom the said property was transferred by the Settlement Department and Permanent Transfer Deed was issued in their favour on 4‑8‑1967. The said transfer was approved by Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board on 21‑10‑1977 and was also saved by section 10 by Evacuee Trust Property Management and Disposal Act, 1975 which reads as under:‑

"An immovable Evacuee Trust Property if situated in a rural area and utilised bona fide order any Act prior to June 1964, for allotment against the satisfaction of verified claims; and

(b) if situated in an urban area and utilised bona fide under any Act for transfer against the satisfaction of verified claims in respect of which Permanent Transfer Deeds were issued prior to June 1968, shall be deemed to have been validly transferred by sale to the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the sale proceeds thereof shall be part of the Trust Pool."

The appellants have not produced any allotment order conferring tenancy on Mst. Phoolan Bai by the Evacuee Trust Department. The mere receipts of rent by Evacuee Trust Department would not prove tenancy in favour of Mst. Phoolan Bai because there is no estoppel against the Statue and statutory bodies on account of mere receipt of rent. A part from that a tenant of Evacuee Trust Department is on no better footing than the tenant of the Custodian Department vis‑a‑viz the transferee of an Evacuee Property from the Settlement Department. Mst. Shamim has in her written‑statement alleged that she has transferred the tenancy in the name of Mst. Phoolan Bai on 21‑9‑1976. Mst. Shamim Akhtar being the statutory tenant of premises in dispute had no right to transfer the same to Mst. Phoolan Bai. Mst. Phoolan Bai having entered into the possession of the said premises in 1976 which is a date much subsequent to the prescribed date under section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act is not a statutory tenant in her own right and was not entitled to the protection thereof. She being at the most an unauthorised sub‑lettee of Mst. Shamim Akhtar was liable to ejectment in execution of an order passed against Mst. Shamim Akhtar.

Apart from that it also appears that application made as well as appeal preferred by the appellant is not maintainable. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq attacked the competency of this appeal as well as the application and placed reliance in the case of Haji Ahmed v. Rent Controller reported in 1983 C L C 840, where it was held by a D.B. of this Court, comprising of Ajmal Mian and Fakharuddin H. Shaikh, JJ. that Rent Controller cannot entertain objections in a case where objector claims a tenancy right in his favour in the execution of eviction order. He also placed reliance in the case of Islamuddin v. Abdul Rehman reported in 1986 Kar. 70 where Sajjad Ali Shah, J. held that the scope of execution proceedings under the new rent law is very much limited and the Rent Controller cannot entertain objections filed by intervenor who was claiming tenancy right in his favour as the same would be a question foreign to the rent proceedings.

These are the reasons for the short order dated 8‑4‑1987 whereby the appeal was dismissed.

A.A./N‑14/K 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.