KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The dispute in this case is about a plot bearing No. 51/10; situated in Garden West, Karachi. M/s. Fine Art Dyers and Printers were the tenants of this plot and Messrs Haji Abdul Rasool and others were their landlords. The parties remained indulged in multiple litigation regarding the payment of rent and other similar matters but it is not necessary to go into the details of the same and for the purpose of the present order it will 'be sufficient to mention that on 10-2-1968 the landlords filed an application for eviction of the tenants under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) inter alia on the ground of default in the payment of rent for the period 1-3-1961 to 31-12-1967 (since the other grounds on which eviction was sought are not in issue at this stage there--fore they need not be mentioned here). The application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller by means of his order dated 20-12-1969, who held that there was no default inasmuch as the title of the landlords was in turmoil because the plot remained forfeited from their names for sometime until 30-10-1967 when it was again restored to them.
2. The landlords filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Karachi, by means of his judgment and order dated 27-1-1971 whereby he reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller, and held, that the tenants were guilty of non-payment of rent and were consequently liable to be evicted from the plot in dispute. He was of the view that the dispute regarding title of the landlords was a matter between them and the Government and that the tenants had no concern with the same, and further that it could not be made as an excuse for non-payment of rent both for the forfeiture period or post restoration period. After giving this finding be directed the eviction of the tenants.
3. The tenants filed an appeal, being Appeal No. 144 of 1971, but without any success, as the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind on 17-1-1979. The learned Single Judge was of the view that after the title of the landlords was cleared or restored by the Government, the tenants had no justification to default in the payment of rent in future though for forfeiture period he found that the tenants were justified in withholding the payment of rent to the landlords. The tenants have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
4. It is an admitted fact that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and the petitioners/tenants had taken the plot in dispute on rent from the landlords (respondents herein). It appears that the landlords were the grantees/lessees of the plot in dispute but their grant/allotment was forfeited somewhere in the year 1961. But was again restored in their favour on 30-10-1967. The landlords gave a notice of the same on 28-11-1967 to the tenants under section 13- A of the Ordinance and claimed the rent from them. The tenants paid no heed to this notice and rather on 27-12-1967 desired the landlords to show to them the relevant order regarding restoration of their title. In this state of affairs the landlords filed the ejectment application on 10-2-1968 inter alia on the ground on default in the payment of rent. It is conceded before us that default in fact ha taken place, but, it has been argued that the non-payment was due to the far that the plot had earlier been forfeited from the name of the landlords an therefore the tenants were justified in not paying any rent till the title of the landlords had become perfect. Proceeding to examine this plea as it is, it will go only half way and will not relieve the petitioners from the liability to pay rent, as held by the High Court with regard to the period after the restoration of the title of the landlords. We find no ground to take except--petition to the aforesaid finding of the High Court and leave the point with regard to liability for the period when the title of the landlords stood forfeited as open, especially when the finding above recorded is sufficient for the disposal of the present petition.
After a notice had been served on the tenants intimating to them about the restoration of landlord's title, they had no justification to remain contumacious or to withhold the payment of the rent or to sit in scrutiny of the title of their landlords, especially when even otherwise they had themselves taken the plot on rent from the said landlords and were estopped from questioning their status as such after the restoration of the aforesaid title. Learned counsel was unable to point out violation of any legal principle or any procedural error in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. The petitioners are however, given four months' time to vacate the plot subject to their continuing paying the rent regularly.