1. ' This Appeal is directed against the order of Additional District Judge, Karachi, dated 22nd April. 1979 in Rent Appeal No, 666 of 1974, who had rejected the Appeal of the appellant and upheld the Judgment of Rent Controller, Karachi, who had passed the order of ejectment on 13th November, 1974 in Rent Case No, 446 of 1968.
2. ' The appellants were the tenants of Messrs Gandhara Industries Limited, Karachi. In respect of Tenement No, 6, Bandukwala Building No, 5, Survey No, 4, Sheet RY-5, situated at McLeod Road, Karachi at the rent of Rs, 75 per month. They were alleged to have 'defaulted in the payment of rent from April, 1967 to January, 1968 (10 months). Messrs Gandhara Industries Limited filed an application for ejectment against the appellant on 19th February, 1968, one ground was default in the payment of rent and the 'other was bona fide personal need. The appellants denied that it was wilful default on their part, but stated that the respondents had not come to collect the rent deliberately and no notice for payment of arrears had been sent. Personal need was also denied.
3. Issues were framed in respect of default and personal requirement. The respondent examined Yousuf Ibrahim and Ashiq All and the appellants examined Muhammad.
4. ' The Rent Controller, Karachi held that the default had been proved, but he did not find that the respondents had the personal need. Consequently, the ejectment was ordered.
5. ' The appeal filed by the appellants before the Additional District Judge, Karachi met with the same fate.
6. ' Mr. M. M. Mabmudi, the learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Company Messrs Gandhara Industries Limited was taken over by the Central Government in 1972, and since an amended application had been filed on 15th July. 1974 on behalf of M/s. National Motors, as the applicants, and the same had not been signed by an authorised officer, therefore, the amended application was incompetent and any order or proceedings passed thereafter were illegal. Mr. M. M. Mahmudi has also taken up the position that since Messrs National Motors were transferees of the property from Messrs Gandhara Motors, therefore, the notice under section 13-A of Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, should have been given by them and the failure to give that notice by the respondents had absolved the appellants of any liability in respect of default. Last point contended by Mr. Mahmudi was that section 8 of Transfer of Property Act authorises the transferee of the property to recover future rent, and hence, there could be no liability of the tenant to pay past rents to the transferee and consequently, any right, which had accrued previously in favour of the transferor in respect of forfeiture of the tenancy by the tenant cannot be enforced by the transferee.
7. ' Mr. M. M. Mahmudi has raised all these points in view of the patent fact that the position in respect of default could not be denied and it is an established position that the appellant had not paid 10 months rent to Messrs Gandhara Industries Limited, when the application for ejectment was filed. The submission of the appellant that the rent had not been collected by the landlord/respondent, and therefore, it was not wilful default on their parts, has been rejected by the two Courts below and it was concurrently held that, the appellants were liable to pay the rent to the respondents whether any demand has been made or not. It has also been held concurrently by the two Courts below that there was no arrangement of rent being collected by the respondents as claimed by the appellant. Therefore, Mr. M. M. Mahmudi could not contend that there was no default by the appellants.
8. There are concurrent findings against his clients.
9. ' The three legal positions taken by Mr. M. M. Mahmudi do not appear to be having much force in view of the fact that the liability of forfeiture of tenancy had been incurred by the appellants in 1967-68 and an application had been filed against them by Messrs Gandhara Industries Limited. Even one of the witnesses of Messrs Gandhara Industries Limited was examined in 1971 before the take-over of its management by the Government in 1972. Even in January 1972, by Economic Reform Ordinance, 1972, the Government took over merely the management of Messrs Gandhara Industries Limited, but the name of Messrs Gandhar B Industries Limited continued to remain intact. The Government did no take over the rights and liabilities of the Company nor did it acquire o extinguish the rights and liabilities of the sharehplders of the said company, therefore, same Messrs Gandhara Industries Limited functione under the management of the Central Government, and in 1972 their last witness was examined. Thereafter, in 1973 by S. R.
0. No, 206 (1-73)/73, dated 19th February, 1973, the name of Messrs Gandhara Industries Limited was changed to Messrs National Motors Limited with effect from the same date but no other change took place. Therefore, the position in law was that Messrs National Motors Limited was merely new name of Messrs C Gandhara Industries Limited by operation of law and there was in fact no other change or transfer of the property of Messrs Gandhara Industries Limited to a new entity of Messrs National Motors Limited. In fact Messrs National Motors Limited was merely the changed name of same Messrs Gandhara Industries Limited. No transfer had taken place by either Economic Reforms Ordinance, 1972, or by S. R.
0. 206 of 1973, therefore, the making of an amended application in 1974 was not necessary by the present respondents and the same was merely an exercise in futility and could not change the position of the party. In fact the change in name had been made by the Government and the same could and should have been taken note of by the Court suo motu. Consequently, the alleged absence of signature of the Managing Director of Messrs National Motors Limited on the application, dated 16th July, 1974, did not invalidate the original application which had been properly signed and which had been filed by Messrs Gandhara Industries Limited for ejectment. Hence, the proceedings were not invalidated at all as the application, dated 15th July 1974, was not necessary to make and it was a mere exercise in futility.
10. ' Since, there was no change of ownership of the property in dispute from Messrs Gandhara Industries Limited to Messrs National Motors Limited and it was merely the case of first a statutory change in the management of the same Company and then giving a different name to the same Company by means of the S. R.
11. 0., therefore, there was no change of transfer of the property in dispute in favour of any person and consequently the provision of section 13-A of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 or section 8 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were not attracted in this case and no notice of transfer of ownership was necessary. Even otherwise section 8 of Transfer of Property Act visualised the transfer of all interests of the transferor in the property in favour of the transferee at the time of transfer of property, and therefore, if a transferor has a right of proceedings against a tenant, then the transferee could pursue the same unless a contrary provision was made in the transfer document.
12. ' In view of these discussions, I do not find any force in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed, but in view of the inconvenience, which would result to the appellants as a result of ejectment, I would grant them for months time to vacate the premises in dispute.