' The respondent landlord filed an eviction petition on 6-7-2000 against the appellant from a shop situate in Main Anarkali Bazar, Nizam Market, Faisalabad on the ground that he purchased the said shop vide registered sale-deed No,4047 dated 2-5-2000. Registered notice of the change of ownership was also sent to the tenant/appellant which was not replied by him. He was the tenant under the previous owner Zafar Iqbal at the monthly rent of Rs,20,000. After purchase of the shop by the respondent, the appellant became his tenant. He has defaulted in the payment of the rent for the last six months and the shop was required for personal need of the landlord/respondent.
The eviction application was resisted on the ground that no property number of the shop has been shown in the application . Zafar Iqbal etc., vendors had no title in the shop in dispute, the landlord/respondent derived none from them. Abdul Wahid and Mukhtar Ahmad were the real owners of the shop. There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties? OPP
(2) Relief.
' After recording the evidence of the parties the learned Rent Controller accepted the eviction application vide order, dated 30-1-2002 and directed the petitioner to put the respondent in possession of the shop within one month. The appellant remained unsuccessful in his appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide order, dated 29-7-2003.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no property number is given in the eviction application nor in the sale-deed as such the property is not identifiable. The boundaries of the shop given in the ejectment petition do not coincide with the boundaries given in the sale-deed.
There is no mention in the sale-deed that the appellant was the tenant of the shop. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Neither the vendors nor the original sale- deed was produced in evidence. It was urged that when the identity of the property is not clear the ejectment cannot be ordered. After the close of the evidence of the defendant/appellant, the landlord/respondent was allowed to produce documentary evidence from Exhs.A.6 to A.11 but no opportunity was granted to the appellant to rebut the same. Reliance was placed on Abdul Jabbar and others v. Muhammad Jabbar and others 2002 SCM R 1173; Alamdar Hussain and others v. Nazir Hussain 2004 SCM R 595 and Ram Rattan (dead) by legal representatives v. Bajrang Lal and others AIR 1978 SC 1393.
' Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the identification of the property is proved on the record. The notice under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, Exh.A.1 was not replied. The appellant became the tenant of the respondent. Since the title of the shop was not in 'dispute there is no need to produce the original title deed.
3. I have gone through the impugned orders, perused the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The description of the property given in the eviction application and the site plan appended with the same tally with the description of the shop given in the sale- deed Exh.A.4. The sale-deed Exh.A.4 shows that the shop in dispute is situate in front of shop owned by Abdul Sattar. The site plan, Exh.A.3 confirms the same. The said sale-deed also reveals that behind the shop in dispute there is shop with the name Mauti Mehl Garments. That too is correct according to site plan. The site plan and the boundaries given.In the eviction application also coincide. On one side of the shop in question is shown the shop of Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Israr. The Main Anarkali Bazar is also shown and on fourth side the lane is also present.
I do not find any discrepancy in the description of the shop in the sale-deed and the eviction application/site plan. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant goes by the board.
' The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not proved is also devoid of force. The appellant produced Abdul Wahid, as R.W.1 who stated that he is owner-in-possession of the shop in dispute and that the appellant was his tenant for the last 7/8 years. He further deposed that the rent of the shop was Rs,4,500 and that the Khasra number of the shop was 19/18. Subsequently he said that it was 1918.
He produced the rent receipts Exhs.R.1 to R.13 issued to the appellant/tenant. The witness did not produce any document of title in his favour regarding the shop in dispute. Similarly the rent receipts Exhs.R.1 to R.13 were supposed to be in possession of the tenant and not landlord. The possession of the said receipts by him has not been explained. He admitted that Zafar Iqbal etc. (vendors) were the co-owners in the building/Khasra number. He further admitted that the property stood privately partitioned. The appellant appeared as R.W.2 and deposed to the same effect. No rent deed or any other document creating the relationship of landlord and tenant between R.W.1 and appellant has been produced. The notice Exh.A-1 under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance regarding transfer of ownership was sent through registered post, the receipt of which is Exh.A.2. The Advocate who sent the legal notice appeared as A.W.1 to prove the same. He deposed that the prepared two copies of the notice Exh.A.1 on 23-5-2000 and sent the same to the appellant through registered post Exh.A.2 from Jaranwala Post Office. He was not cross-examined on this fact. His statement will be deemed to have been accepted. The appellant appeared as R.W.2, he did not say a word about the receipt of the aforementioned notice in his examination-in- chief, however, he denied receiving the same in his cross-examination. No evidence has been produced by the appellant to rebut that the notice through registered post was not delivered to him by the Postman. Notice sent through registered post will be presumed to have reached the addressee. See Abdul Majid (represented by Legal Heirs) v. Dr. Din Muhammad (represented by Legal Heirs) 1980 CLC 513 and Masood Sadiq v. Haji Muhammad Ali PLD 1968 Lah.
1201. Respondent became the landlord and the appellant was bound to tender rent to him.
Respondent produced Haji Rafique A.W.2 and Khalid Javed, A.W.3, they are the shopkeepers in the Anarkali Bazar. Khalid Javed, A.W.3 is also the Secretary General of Anjuman-e-Tajran, Anarkali, Faisalabad. Both of them deposed that appellant demanded money for vacating the shop. They are reliable witnesses and have no reason to depose against the appellant. The entries in the assessm ent register of the Excise and Taxation Department, Exh.R.14 do not prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between R. W.1 and the appellant nor the same are documents of title. The respondent/landlord has produced a copy of the sale-deed in his favour from Zafar Iqbal etc. Vendors. The vendors have not challenged the sale in favour of respondent as such there was no need to produce the vendors as witnesses. Similarly there was no need to produce the original sale-deed for proving the relationship of landlord and tenant as the sale is not in question. As far as the argument of the learned counsel that no opportunity was provided to the appellant to rebut the documentary evidence produced from Exhs.A.6 to A.11, suffice to say that they are the certified copies of the judicial.And other public record. Learned counsel for the appellant himself has been relying on a lamabandi', Exh.A.5 during the arguments to show that property was joint. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant do not help him.
4. For what has been stated above the identity of the property is proved and the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant has been rightly decided concurrently by the Courts below. No misreading or non-reading has been pointed out. This appeal has no merit and is dismissed. The appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the shop to the respondent within three months.
Parties to bear their own costs.