' The appellant abovenamed being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30th March, 1976 passed in Appeal No, 4/1974, by the learned District Judge, Sanghar by which while agreeing with the finding of the learned Rent Controller, on question of default. He dismissed appellants appeal and maintained the order of ejectment passed by the said Rent Controller, the appellants have preferred this appeal, inter alto on the following facts and grounds --
2. Respondent abovenamed is transferee of House No. 1-B-421/ corresponding to C. S. No, C/347, old Municipal No, 954 and New Municipal No, 2011, situated at Sawai Road, Shandadpur, vide P. T.
0. No, ENW S-250 dated 29th November, 1961 and P. T. D. No, 909 dated 18th May, 1965. At the time of issuance of P. T.
0. To the respondent abovenamed one Nazeer Haig son of Sardar Baig, the predecessor of the appellants, was in occupation of the said house and as such he became statutory tenant of the respondent. The respondent served notice dated 1st August, 1962 under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. And Rehab.) Act, 1958 on said .Nazeer Baig son of Sardar Baig, the deceased, informing him of the transfer of the house in question in his favour and called upon the deceased to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs, 5 per month. The deceased Nazeer Baig, did not pay any rent to the respondent abovenamed, till his death. The respondent, therefore, served another notice dated 12th May, 1970 which was served on 14th May, 1970 on the appellants under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. & Rehab.) Act, 1958. On the death of the said Nazeer Baig, and called upon them to pay the arrears of tent at the rate of Rs, 5 per month. On receipt of this notice, the appellants wrote a letter to the respondent, asking the respondent to supply them the copy of the P. T. D. And consequently the respondent sent the copy of the P. T. D. Vide his letter dated 13th August, 1970 to the appellants. The appellants sent Rs, 100 to the respondent by money order dateti 25th August, 1970 after the expiry of statutory period of three months from notice dated 12th May, 1970, being the rent for 20 months and requested to pay the balance of arrears in instalments. The respondent refused to receive the rent by money order and filed the ejectment proceedings on the ground of default as well as on the ground that the respondent requires the premises in occupation of the appellants for his personal and bona fide use. .3. The appellants filed their written statement in the above ejectment application, in which they denied receipt of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. And Rehab. Act, 1958 by deceased Nazeer Baig, their predecessor-in-tilte and further the appellants contended that notice dated 12th May, 1970 sent by the respondent to appellants, which was served on appellants on 14th May, 1970, was not a legal notice and only second notice dated 13th August, which rectified the contents of the earlier notice, could be deemed to be a legal notice and a, iount of Rs, 100 was remitted by money order, few days after the receipt of the second notice dated 13th August, 1970 to the respondent and as such there was no default in payment of rent. The appellants further stated in their written statement that the respondent owns another house at Shandadpur and as such the respondent cannot claim the ejectment on the ground that the house in occupation of the appellants was needed by him for his personal and bona fide use.
4. The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues
(1) Whether the first notice sent by the applicant/respondent to the opponents/appellants was legal and valid under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. And Rehab.) Act, 1958 ?
(2) if issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether the opponents' appellants are defaulters ?
(3) Whether the applicant/respondent require the house in dispute for his personal use ?
(3-a) Whether the applicant/respondent served notice dated 1st August. 1962 on the predecessor of the opponents/appellants is a valid legal notice ?
(3-b) Whether the period of protection under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. And Rehab.) Act, 1958 has expired ?
(4) What should the decree be ?
5. The parties abovenamed led evidence before the learned Rent Controller and also argued their respective cases before him and on the basis of the said evidence and after taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of both the parties, the learned Rent Controller decided all the above-mentioned issues in favour of the respondent, for the reasons given by him in his order dated 22nd December, 1973 and directed the appellants to put the respondent in vacant possessions of the premises in their occupation.
6. The appellants abovenamed, being aggrieved by the above mentioned order dated 22nd December, 1973 of the learned Rent Controller, filed Appeal No, 4/1974 before the District Judge, Sanghar, who by his judgment dated 30th March, 1976 agreed with the finding of the learned Rent Controller on Issues Nos. 1 and 2 and held that the appellants were defaulters. As far as Issue No, 3 was concerned the learned District Judge, Sanghar came to the conclusion, that the notice dated 1st August, 1962 given by the respondent to the predecessors-in-title of the appellants was invalid notice as the description of the property given in the said notice was incorrect, the period of protection given under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. And Rehab.) Act, 1958 to the appellants would start running from service of notice dated 12th May, 1970 which was given by the respondent to the present appellants and as such it was not necessary to give any finding on this issue regarding personal and bona fide need of the respondent as ejectment proceedings were prematurely filed, on the basis of notice dated 12th May, 1970 which was duly served on the appellants on 14th May, 1970 and as such the learned District Judge did not dispose of this issue on merit. In view of the above mentioned finding given by the learned District Judge, Sanghar, he came to the conclusion that there was no need to interfere with the direction of the learned Rent Controller given to the appellants to hand over vacant possession of the premises in their occupation to the respondent and as such he dismissed the appellants, appeal.
7. The main contention that has been raised by the learned Advocate for the appellants before me was, that notice dated 12th May, 1970 which was served on the appellants on 14th May, 1970 sent by the respondent to the appellants under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. And Rehab.)
Act. 1958 was as invalid notice, as in the said notice the date of the issue of P T. D. Was mentioned as one prior to issue of P. T 0. Which was not feasible and as such the second notice dated 13th August 1970 by which the respondent sent copy of P T. D. Alone could be considered as a valid notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. And Rehab.) Act, 1958 and in view of the fact that the appellants remitted money order for Rs, 100 on 25th August, 1970 and second money order of Rs, 100 on 29th August, 1970 within the statutory period of three months from the second notice, the questiond of appellants being defaulters in payment of rents does not arise. I see no force in this arguments, as mere mistake in the communication of the date of P. T. D. Would not render notice dated 12th May, 1970 under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. And Rehab.)
Act, 1958 as invalid, if otherwise the said A notice is found to be valid.. The leaf ned District Judge, Sanghar as well as the learned Rent Controller have given cogent reasons for holding notice dated 12th May 1970 as a valid notice under the provision of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp.
And Rehab.) Act, 1958 and I see no reasons to disagree with this concurrent findings of both the learned Lower Courts and hold that the notice dated 12th May, 1970 which was served on the appellant on 14th of 1970 was valid and legal notice under the provision of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. And Rehab) Act, 1958 and as such the appellants were . Bound to pay the rents demanded from them within the statutory period of three months from the receipt of the said notice, which they failed to do so and as such the appellants were defaulters in payments of rents, as held by both the learned lower Courts.
' As far as issue No, 3 is concerned although the learned District Judge Sanghar has come to the conclusion that it was not necessary to give any finding on the said issues, as the protection given to the appellants under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. And Rehab) Act, 1958 had not expired when the ejectment proceedings were initiated. I would like to mention that in view of the repeal of the section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. & Rehab.) Act, 1958 on 30th December, 1974 and in view of the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Comp. And Rehab.) Act, 1958 on 28th January, 1975 the protection given to the occupants under the said Act stood withdrawn and was not available on 30th March, 1978 when the learned District Judge. Sanghar passed the judgment in question. He has relied on unreported judgment dated 9th November. 1980 delivered by K. A.
Ghani, J. In Second Appeal No, 162/1980 Muhammad Qmar v. Abdul Alafeed and others with which I agree, for the reasons given in the said judgment. In view of this, the findings of the, learned District Judge, Sanghar, cannot be sustained on this issue and as such I am inclined to agree with the finding of the learned Rent Controller on this issue, which is based on cogent reasons and on appreciation of the evidence led by both the parties before him. Ordinarily I would have remanded back this appeal to the learned District Judge, Sanghar to give his finding on merits in respect of issue No, 8 without expressing my opinion thereon, but in view of the fact that I have agreed with the concurrent findings of both the learned lower Courts in respect of Issues Nos. 1 and 2 have come to the conclusion, that appellant was wilful in default within meaning of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 as they failed to pay or tender all the rents due from them within the statutory period of three months from 14th May, 1970 when the notice dated 12th May, 1970 given by the respondent to them under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. And Rehab.) Act, 1958 was served on them, no useful purpose will be served by such remand. In view of the above conclusion and findings of mine, 1 dismiss the above appeal with no orders as to Costs and direct the appellants to hand over vacant possession of the premises in their occupation to the respondent, within for months from the date of this judgment.