1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment dated 23-11-1980 passed by a learned Single Judge of the; Sind High Court dismissing the Second Appeal of the petitioner herein.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was in occupation of the premises on the ground floor of the bungalow on Plot No. 18. Survey No. J. M. 24, situated in Karachi Parsi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Parsi Colony, M. A. Jinnah Road, Karachi, as a tenant, for the last about 50 years at a monthly rent of Rs.
85. This property was jointly owned by Mrs. Jerbai M. Kandawala and her son Mr. Bejon M. Kandawaia to whom the peti--tioner paid rent regularly.
3. His problems began after the death of Mrs. Jerbai M. Kandawala in the year 1971. The petitioner, thereafter, continued to pay rent to Mr. Bejon M. Kandawala by money order, who continued to accept the rent up to December, 19 71. Meanwhile, by a notice dated 6th November, 1974, the Respondents 1-2, who are daughters of Mr. Bejon M. Kandawala, informed the petitioner that they had become the joint owners of the property by way of inheritance from their grandmother Mrs. Jerbai M. Kandawala and by way of gift from their father Mr. Bejon M. Kandawala and they, accordingly, called upon the petitioner to pay rent of the premises in his occupation to them and also called upon him to vacate the same within 30 days from the receipt thereof, as the same was required for the use and occupation of respondent No. 1. On the 23rd November, 1974, the petitioner replied to the aforesaid notice wherein he denied the claim to the ownership of the property in dispute and informed them that Mr. Bejon M. Kandawala had been receiving rent from him. He further demanded from them a copy of the gift alleged to have been made in their favour transferring the ownership of the property in dispute to them. The petitioner further denied the claim of the respondents for possession of the premises in occupation of the petitioner that the same was required by them reasonably or in good faith. The respondents, by their letter dated 14- 12-1974, forwarded a copy of the letter dated 16-3-1974 issued to them by the Honorary Secretary, Karachi Parsi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Karachi, in support of their claim to be the owners of the property in dispute. The petitioner sent a reply to this letter on 18-1-1975 and meanwhile continued sending rent to Mr. Bejon M. Kandawala but the latter refused to accept the money order and also returned the cheque of advance rent sent by the petitioner. He further informed the petitioner that the respondents were present owners of the property in question vide his letter dated 31-7-1975.
4. Meanwhile on 13-2-1.975, the respondents filed a Rent case (No. 485/75) for the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises mentioned hereinabove, inter alia, on the ground that the same was required in good faith for the use and occupation of Respondent No. 1. The petitioner contested the said application and denied the claim of the respondents in his written statement.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following preliminary issues :--
(1) Whether the applicants are not the owners/landlords of the premises in dispute and have no locus standi to file this application ?
(2) Whether there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ?
6. On the said preliminary issues, the respondents examined their brother Darius Kandawala, while the petitioner examined himself.
7. The learned Rent Controller, by his order dated 29-11-1975, decided both the preliminary issues in favour of the respondents and ordered the petitioner to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the bungalow in question to the respondents within the period of 30 days.
8. The petitioner filed a Rent Appeal (No. 781; 75) against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller and the said appeal came up for hearing before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi, who, by means of his order dated 8-4-1976 accepted the same so far as it related to the ejectment of the petitioner was concerned and reaffirmed the finding of the Rent Controller on the preliminary issues referred to hereinabove but remitted the case to the Rent Controller for disposal on merits according to law.
9. The petitioner then filed a Second Appeal (No. 258/76) in the High Court of Sind at Karachi challenging the above order. The learned High Court Judge has, however, dismissed the above appeal by his order dated 23-11-1980. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
10. Mr. M. G. Dastgir, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the learned Judge in the High Court erred in holding the respondents to be the landlord within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Rent Restriction Ordi--nance, 1959. He submits the respondents were claiming to be owners/landlords on their own account on the basis of' the oral gift made in their favour by Mrs. Jerbai M. Kandawala and Mr. Bejon M. Kandawala. The oral gift was invalid, void and did not create any right and interest in favour of the respond--ents to demand rent and/or possession from the petitioner. The letter of Mr. Bejon M. Kandawala to the effect that the respondents were the present owners of the property in question could not be held to be a letter of attorn--ment being in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Transfer of Property Act read with section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. According to the learned counsel, section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that every transfer by gift must be affected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. Section 129, however, saves gifts under Muhammad Laws. Consequently, the oral gift-on the basis whereof the respondents were claiming to be the landlord of the property in occupation of the petitioner was against the mandatory provisions of law and it was void and could not create any right, title or interest in favour of the respondents.
11. We have considered these arguments but have not been persuaded and are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the respondents come within the definition of the word "landlord" is correct.
12. The word "landlord", as given in section 2 (c) of the Ordinance Means: "landlord means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf or for the benefit of any other person., or as a trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other person and includes a tenant who sublets any building or rented land in the manner here in after authorised and every person from time totime deriving title under a landlord."
13. According to the above definition of the word "landlord" even a person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building is a land--lord for the purposes of Ordinance in question.
14. Consequently, on the basis of the notice dated 6th November, 1974 issued by the respondents to the petitioner intimating the transfer of the property in their favour and the letter o Mr. Bejon M.
15. Kandawala confirming this position, the respondents could be deemed to be the "landlord" within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Rent) Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
16. We may observe that it is not disputed that the petitioner does not claim to be the owner of the bungalow in question and admits that he is a tenant in the disputed property. By virtue of notice under section 13-A of the Ordi--nance dated 6-11-1974 (Exh. A-5) issued by the respondents coupled with letter dated 31-7-1975 sent by Mr. Bejon M. Kandawala or, the landlords by which be returned the cheque sent to him as advance rent by the petitioner wherein he clearly mentioned that the respondents were the present owners of the property in question. The view taken by the learned Single Judge appears to be correct that this letter by one of the ex-landlord after the death of co-owner Mrs. Jerbai Kandawala amounted to a letter of acknowledgement and on the basis of which the present respondents became entitled to receive the rent of the disputed property.
17. Moreover, there is no allegation by the petitioner that any other person or persons after the death of Mrs Jerbai have claimed the ownership of the disputed property. For all these reasons, the respondents have rightly been held to be the "landlord" within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Ordinance Consequently, this petition must fail and is hereby dismissed.