This dispute relates to shop situate in property No. S-49-R-25 Chamber--lane Road, Lahore which is in the occupation of the petitioner whose ejectment has been ordered at the behest of Barkat Ali who claims to be landlord and who is respondent No. 1 in this petition. From the judgment impugned by means of this petition, it appears that Barkat Ali claims to be owner of 5/12th share of the property afore referred and admits that one Charagh Din who appeared as R. W. 2 before the Rent Controller, is the owner of the other 7/12th share of the property. It appears that Barkat Ali purchased this property from Mst. Taleh Bibi, etc. By sale-deed Exh. P. 2 dated 27-12-1960. It further appears and is not denied that on 23-2-1961 and 28.4-66 the petitioner executed rent notes in favour of respondent No. 1 landlord which were exhibited as Exhs. P. 5 and P. 6 respectively before the Rent Controller. According to the landlord, the petitioner regularly paid rent at the rate of Rs.12 p. m. Up to 30th of June 1974 when he defaulted. Accordingly an ejectment application was filed against him on the ground of default for the period 1-7-1974 to 30th of June 1977 and arrears of Rs.432 were claimed. It was the defence of the petitioner tenant that he had paid rent to respondent. No. 1 up to 30-6-74 but stopped paying after he received notice Exh. R. 2 on 21-6-74 from one Charagh who claimed to be the purchaser of the property and that thereafter he had started paying rent to Charagh and produced before the Rent Controller rent receipts Exhs. R. 3 to R.
24. On this basis he denied that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between him and the petitioner or the default had taken place.
3. The learned Rent Controller framed an issue with regard to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties before him. Before the Rent Controller, the landlord appearing as his own witness produced the sale deed Exh. P. 2 and the rent notes Exh. P. 5 and Exh.
P. 6 aforereferred and stated that he owned a 5/12 share of the property whilst Charagh afore- referred owned the other 7/12 share. He stated that the petitioner tenant had paid him rent up to 1- 7-1974 and asserted default on the part of the tenant thereafter. The petitioner tenant produced two witnesses in addition to himself, including the Advocate who had sent notice Exh. R. 1 afore- referred in June 1974 and Charagh R. W. 2 on whose behalf the notice was sent and who claimed to be the owner of the property. In his statement before the Rent Controller it was stated by Charagh R. W. 2 that he had purchased the property afore-referred in 1960 and was its owner and that he had sent notice Exh. R. 1 to the present petitioner tenant and that after 1-7-74 was regularly receiving the rent of the premises in dispute from the petitioner tenant. He also stated that in the record of the Property Tax Department necessary changes were made showing him as the owner of the property. In his statement the petitioner as R. W. 3 admitted that he was first a tenant of respondent No. 1 in the property in dispute, and had executed the rent notes in favour of the landlord respondent No. 1 and had paid rental to him up to 30-6-74. It was his case that after receipt of notice Exh. R. 1 he ceased to pay rental to Barkat Ali respondent No. 1 and instead paid rental to Charagh R. W. 2 whom he acknowledged as landlord.
4. The Rent Controller held that as .The petitioner had admitted being a tenant of Barkat Ali respondent No. 1 he continued in law to retain his status as tenant of Barkat Ali and Charagh could not be held to Barket Ali and that it stood proved that he was still a tenant of Barket Ali.
5. The petitioner's appeal against the order of ejectment afore-referred failed before the appellate Court, which vide its order dated 17-5-1980 came to the conclusion that Charagh had claimed to have purchased the property in the year 1960 but had only claimed rent with effect .From 1-7-1974 and that it appeared that there were two shops one of which was in possession of respondent No. 1 whereas the other was in possession of Cbaragh R. W.
2. It took note of the admission made by the present petitioner before the Rent Controller regarding payment of rental to Barkat Ali and also that he had tiled no suit for the cancellation of rent notes which he claimed had been got executed from him by fraud and misrepresenta--tion. It also took note of the fact that Charagh had never asked rent prior to June 1974 though he claimed to be the owner of the property since 1960.
6. It was not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had executed the rent notes Exhs. P. 5 and P. 6 in 1961 and 1966 respectively in favour of respondent No. 1, that the petitioner had regularly paid rental to the said respondent up to 30-6-1974 and that the petitioner had intentionally stopped paying rental to him thereafter. However, it was contended by learned counsel that after receipt of notice Exh. R. 1, the respondent no longer remained the landlord and the further contention was that the notice .Exh. R. I was in law one under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), whereafter the petitioner attorned to Charagh and started paying rental to him as is evidenced by Receipts. R. 3 to R.
24. It was contended that in the circumstances, the Respondent No. 1 did not in law retain the status of a landlord nor could it be said that any default in payment of rent had taken place.
7. A landlord as defined in clause (c) of section 2 of the Ordinance means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building whether on his own or ors behalf of or for the benefit of any other person and it is by now settled law that for the purpose of -4 failing within the definition of "landlord" it is not necessary that the person so claiming, be the owner of the property. Any person entitled to claim rent is a landlord within the meaning of the definition afore - -referred, see Muhammad Ali v. Abdur Rahim (1980 SC.M R 29), Mst. Razia Butt v. Ghulam Raza (PLD 1979 Quetta 157), Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Amin (PLD 1977 Lab. 516), Bagh-e-Shah v.
Muhammad Akhtar Hussain (PLD 1977 Kar. 460) and Allah Wassaya v. Sultan Ahmad (PLD 1976 Lab. 62). It has been found by both the Courts below that by virtue of the rent notes Exhs. P. 5 and P.
6. Respondent No. 1 was the landlord and in fact even the petitioner did not deny that he had been paying rent to respondent No. 1 up to 30th of June 1974. There is no legal infirmity in this finding.
8. The notice Exh. R. 1 received in June 1974 on behalf of Charagh cannot be taken to be a notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance. A careful reading of the said section shows that it only applies where any tenanted premises has been transferred by way of sale, etc. And requires the new owner to give intimation of such transfer to the person in occupation of the same. This definition presupposes that the premises is already tenanted and that the transfer of ownership has taken place after coming, into existence of the tenancy. In the present case, according to Charagh be purchased the property in 1960. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the purchase was made in 1955 but that would make no difference, for it stands established that whatever right Charagh was claiming was based on a purchase made much prior to 23-2-1961 and 29-4-1966, the dates of the rent note P. 5 and P. 6 respectively, admittedly executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No 1. It is not permissible for a tenant to stop paying rent to the landlord merely on receiving a notice from some other person claiming to be they owner. It is not for me to advise the course of action in such event, but in case the tenant ceases to pay rent to the landlord he would obviously be committing default within the meaning of the term as defined in the Ordinance.
Both the Courts below have found that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties after the petitioner had denied the same and had not alleged payment of rent after 1-7- 1974. In fact default stands admitted qua respondent No. I the landlord.