Through this appeal filed under Section 15 of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, VI of 1959 (the Ordinance'), the appellants impugn their ejectment from" katcha houses situated/constructed on plot bearing Khasra Nos. 484 and 487, Khewat No. 145, Khatooni No. 205, Measuring 4500 sq.ft., Kasi road, Quetta, ordered by Civil Judge-I-cum-Rent Controller, Quetta, by his order dated 25-07-2009.
2. Facts, necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are that in the year 1965, the previous owner of the disputed houses rented it out to the appellants. It is in the year 1993 that respondent purchased the houses in-question, where after he gave a notice of change of ownership to the appellants under Section 13-A of the Ordinance. Subsequently, the respondent on 17-12-2005 filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Ordinance against the appellants, on the grounds that they had willfully defaulted in the payment of monthly rent from 1993 till filing of eviction application and that tenanted premises were genuinely needed by the respondent for his personal use and occupation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the respondent has not approached the Rent Controller with clean hands and concealed the material facts. He is not owner/landlord of the property in-question and mutated the same on his name through fraud and misrepresentation of facts. It is also contended that the respondent was not legally authorized to institute eviction application being not the sole owner/landlord of the disputed property. He has not executed any lqrar Nama with the appellants and managed the same through fraud and forgery, which is, otherwise, not admissible in evidence being unregistered. He lastly contended that neither any notice regarding the change of ownership was issued to the appellants, nor the property in- question is required to the respondents for his personal bona fide use and occupation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, has vehemently opposed the contentions so raised and supported the order impugned herein, on the grounds that the Rent Controller, after proper appraisal of record and evidence, has rightly made the order of ejectment, which does not call for any interference by this Court.
5. So far as the personal requirement of the respondent is concerned, admittedly, he is residing with his other brothers and five grownup children in a joint house, which does not commensurate with his needs, therefore, the rented premises/houses are required by him for his personal use and occupation. As he has no other house to reside in, as such, it is proved that the respondent required the property for his personal use. The respondent appeared before the Rent Controller and also produced Kaleemullah (AW-1), Badoor Khan (AW-2) and Shahid Akhtar (AW-3) in support of his claim of ownership and bona fide need, whereas the appellants have failed to shatter the veracity of statement of landlord that he is not in need of the property in-question. In the case of Messrs F. K Irani and Co. vs. Begum Feroze-reported in 1996 SCM R 1178, it has been held that: "Statement of landlord on oath, if consistent with the application for ejectment and not shaken in cross-examination or disproved in rebuttal is sufficient to prove that requirement of landlord is bona fide."
6. Reverting to the contention of learned counsel for the appellant regarding notice under Section 13-A of the Ordinance, it may be added that even if notice under Section 13-A of the Ordinance was not proved to be issued, still filing of eviction application would amount to notice under Section 13- A of the Ordinance and the appellants were under legal obligation to have made payment of the rent from the date, the respondent became the landlord/owner of the houses in dispute, but the appellants have admitted that they have not paid the rent to the respondent after transfer of the houses in dispute. The appellants had committed default in payment of the rent and the Rent Controller has fallen in error while deciding Issue No. 2 is negative.
7. There is yet another piece of evidence, which is the admission of the appellants that the property in-question has been mutated by the respondent on his name through fraud and misrepresentation and in this regard an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the CPC was made by the wife of previous owner, viz, Khan Bibi alias Wadairi, which was dismissed up to this Court, meaning thereby the appellants had sufficient notice that the houses in-question were sold to respondent and that he was their landlord. Such being the case, the conduct of the appellants being contumacious by denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and their denial of their having paid the rent to respondent even after such notice was sufficient for ordering their ejectment without recording any further evidence. It is a settled principle of law that where the tenant denies relationship of landlord and tenant and such relationship stands proved, then no other course is left for the Court, but to order his eviction. I am fortified from the judgement- reported in 1992 SCM R 1170, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if there is contumacious denial of relationship, the tenant is liable to be evicted straightaway without recording evidence on the other grounds, such as, default, damage to property or personal need.
8. Similarly, the contention of the appellants' counsel, that the respondent being not the sole owner in view of mutation entry Ex.P/1 had no locus standi to institute the eviction application, is also devoid of force, because eviction application can be moved by one landlord and it is not essential for him to obtain a permission in writing from his colandlord/co-owners, as he has locus standi to file eviction application alone being co-owner. Admittedly, the respondent is one of the landlord and it is worth mentioning here that the question of title has no relevancy in the proceedings before the Rent Controller, as the pivotal point needs determination would be the relationship of landlord and tenant, which would be the only determining factor, because a tenant has absolutely no right to raise any objection regarding the ownership, as it would have no substantial effect on the factum of his tenancy and his status would remain as tenant. If any authority is required, reference can be made to the case titled as Nek Muhammad vs. Muhammad Shafi-reported in 1983 SCM R 180, Ghulam Rasool vs. Bakhtawar-reported in 1981 SCM R 193 and Anwar Khan vs. Abdul Manaf-reported in 2004 SCM R 126.
From what has been discussed hereinabove, no ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.