ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Iftikhar Qureshi has filed this constitution petition against the orders dated 15.03.2012 and 31.03.2014, passed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 in Rent Case No,407/2009 and F.R.A. No,146/2012 respectively whereby he was directed to vacate the possession of rented House No, 9/18 and 9-A/18, "B" Area, Karachi and handover to respondent No, 1 within 30 days.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondent No,1 Muhammad Yahya Qureshi filed rent application cited above before the Rent Controller pleading therein that he purchased demised premises ground plus three vide sale agreement dated 21.4.2004 executed between him and previous owner Moin Baig son of Rais Baig; that at the time of purchase the demised premises was in occupation of tenant (petitioner), therefore, previous landlord sent a letter to him regarding change of ownership and requiring him to pay the rent to the new owner (respondent No,1), in pursuance thereof, the petitioner paid the rent to him upto October, 2008 and in the meanwhile in the month of September, 2008 a conveyance deed was executed and registered by the previous owner in favour of the respondent No,
1. It was further pleaded that the petitioner sublet the property to sub-tenant and did not pay the rent after October, 2008, consequently respondent demanded the possession of the property in question on the ground of his personal bona fide need so also committing wilful default in payment of monthly rent and subletting the same to three different people.
3. The petitioner contested the matter and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant with specific plea that his wife and respondent No,1 are sister and brother inter se and she had purchased the property in question and paid Rs,14,00,000/- at the time of execution of sale agreement on 21.4.2004 through her brother which amount of her was due on him as her share in the property left by their father and the remaining amount was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed but the respondent No,1 dishonestly paid the remaining amount without consent and knowledge of the petitioner's wife, thus, she has filed a suit No,394 of 2010 for declaration as owner of the property, recovery of documents, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. It was further mentioned that three other tenants are residing in the said building and the opponent's wife being owner has been collecting the rent from them.
4. The Rent Controller framed the following points for determination in the case:--
1. Whether. There exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and opponent.
2. If yes, whether the opponent committed wilful default in payment of the rent to the applicant by denying his status of landlord?
3. What should the order be?
5. In support of their respective contentions both parties produced their evidence and vide order dated 15.3.2012 passed by learned IInd Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller Karachi Central, it was concluded that relationship of landlord and tenant did exist between the parties, therefore, directed ejectment of petitioner from the demised premises. Appeal filed by the petition was also dismissed on 31.03.2014 by learned IIIrd Additional District Judge Karachi, Central. As such instant petition has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that without considering the material brought on record as to ownership of petitioner's wife and filing of civil suit regarding title of the property in question, the learned Rent Controller as well as Appellate Court decided the points of relationship in favour of respondent No,1 though the civil suit is still subjudiced in the Court of Law.
Learned counsel further contended that the findings of both the courts below are based on flimsy grounds, as such are not sustainable in law. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon 1987 CLC 686 Karachi, 2001 MLD 1037, 2001 MLD 1044, 1991 MLD 1774, 1991 SCMR 2300, 1987 CLC 148, 1991 MLD 299, PLD 1963 Dacca 269, 1990 CLC 1529 and PLD 1968 Supreme Court 342.
7. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent No,1 argued that the petitioner's admission as tenant of previous owner Moin Baig is on record from whom the respondent No,1 has purchased the property in question; that though service of notice as to change of ownership has been denied by the petitioner but filing of the ejectment application was sufficient notice in this regard, afterwards it was incumbent upon him to deposit the rent amount before the Rent Controller within 30 days failure thereof has proved him as wilful defaulter. He further argued that conveyance deed executed in favour of respondent No,1 is admitted document, therefore, mere version of the petitioner that they had paid the consideration amount through respondent No,1 and filing of the suit by the petitioner's wife is no ground to deprive him from legal relief until unless such decree is passed in favour of petitioner's wife. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon 1972 CLC 1930, 1994 SCMR 572, 1987 CLC 148, PLD 1987 Karachi 526, PLD 2011 SC 296, 1997 SCMR 1775, 2013 YLR 1103, 2013 CLC 280, NLR 2004 Civil 702, 1990 MLD 2300, 1996 MLD 1141, 2010 CLC 561, 1989 CLC 1467, PLD 2013 Sindh 513 and 2012 YLR 854.
8. I have given my patience hearing to the arguments advanced by the parties counsel and gone through R&Ps of the case.
9. The respondent No,1 in his rent application and affidavit in evidence stated that he had purchased the demised premises on 21.04.2004 through an agreement of sell and thereafter, in the month of September, 2008 a conveyance deed was executed and registered by the previous owner in his favour. The petitioner neither produced these two documents with his written statement nor challenged the genuineness of these documents. It is an admitted fact on record that the original owner of the property was Moin Baig son of Rais Baig petitioner was his tenant and in possession of 2nd and 3rd floor of demised premises vide tenancy agreement dated 24.10.2000.
The case of petitioner before trial court was that his wife paid Rs,14,00,000/- through her brother (respondent No,1) for purchasing of the said demised premises but he has got it transferred in his name. The attorney of petitioner in his cross examination has admitted that the conveyance deed and sale agreement were executed in favour of respondent No,
1. He further admitted that he was witness in the sale agreement executed by the previous owner in favour of respondent No, 1 .
However, the letter of previous owner for change of ownership has been denied by him. It is settled principle of law now-a-days that the notice of a rent application/ejectment application would be sufficient notice in compliance, of section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance and non- payment of rent would make a tenant defaulter even if notice under section 18 is not served upon him, as such the contention raised by the petitioner regarding non-service of notice as to change of ownership is untenable. If any law is needed on this point, reliance may be placed on the case of 'Ghulam Waris v. Riaz Ahmed Advocate' (NLR 1990 Civil 770), 'Messrs Jodhpur Rajastan Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Mst. Yasmeen Aziz' (1996 MLD 1141) and 'Hameed and 3 others v. Jitendra and 2 others' (2010 CLC 561).
10. So far the contention of learned petitioner's counsel regarding ownership of petitioner's wife and filing of her suit for declaration as ownership of property in question and till its decision stay of the ejectment application is devoid of force for the reasons that Rent Controller being Tribunal of limited jurisdiction cannot go into such questions which can be decided only by civil court of competent jurisdiction and rent proceedings cannot be stayed till decision of civil suit if filed by the parties. In this regard reliance is placed on a case of `Barkat Masih v. Manzoor Ahmed (deceased) through L.Rs,' (NLR 2004 Civil 702) wherein it was held that "Even otherwise it is settled principle of law that if the tenant denies the proprietary rights of the landlord then he is bound to first of all deliver the possession of the premises in question and then to contest his proprietary rights in the property and if ultimately he succeeds in getting the relief from the Court and decree is passed in his favour then he can enforce the same according to law with all its consequences".
11. With profound respect, the citations cited upon by learned counsel for petitioner are .Not relevant to the facts and circumstances of his case.
12. In this case, there are concurrent findings of two Courts below which have been challenged in this constitution petition. The constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to interfere in the impugned orders where the appellate judge has not flouted the provision of relevant statute or failed to follow the law relating thereto. The High Court has no jurisdiction to substitute his own finding in the findings recorded by the Tribunals below.
13. In view of above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out whether both the Courts below have flouted any provision of law thus the petition being devoid of force stands dismissed accordingly.