' Appellant above-named has filed the above second appeal against the impugned judgment dated 1-9-1980 of the learned Ilnd Additional District Judge, Karachi, passed in Rent Appeal No, 145 of 1976, by which he confirmed the order of ejectment dated 31st January, 1976, of the learned 5th Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi in favour of the respondents, on the facts and grounds mentioned in memo. Of above appeal.
2. The main contention raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant before me was, that since respondents failed to reply to appellant's Advocate's letter dated 8th September, 1971 and failed to furnish heirship certificate in order to establish, that they were the only legal heirs of deceased Mst.
Slamti Jan the appellant was not obliged to tender rents to them in spite of their notice under section 13-A dated 31st August, 1971, and therefore both the learned lower Courts have erred in coming to conclusion, that the appellant was a wilful defaulter in payment of rents and consequently the order and the judgment of both the learned lower Courts are liable to be set aside on this ground alone, in view of the clear provisions of section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. In support of this contention the learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon cases reported in PLD 1977 Lah. 210 and 1979 CLC 720.
3. The learned Advocate for the respondent on the other hand submitted, that the wording of section 13-A does not require the legal heirs of the deceased to produce any proof of their inheritance, besides giving notice as contemplated by section 13-A of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance and consequently the request of the appellant to furnish proof by way of heirship certificate was uncalled for and illegal and as such respondents were not obliged to comply with such request. In support of this contention the learned Advocate for the respondents relied upon case reported in PLD 1976 Kar. 169 and submitted that on analogy of this case, provisions of Section 13-A ought to be interpreted.
4. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocate before me and have gone through the authorities cited by them as well as through the R & P of the learned lower Courts. The provision of section 13-A are very clear and do not contemplate anything more than giving of intimation to the tenant about the death of the owner and the names of the persons, who have inherited the said property. Once this is done, in my opinion the tenant has no legal right to demand heirship certificate or any other legal documents in proof of the inheritance, on the part of the legal representative and/or legal heirs of the deceased. This view of mine is fully supported by judgment of this Court reported in PLD 1976 Kar. 169, which relates, no doubt, to the provisions of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, although the said provisions are more strict for purpose of compliance. In addition to this, I find from the statement of the appellant given before the learned trial Court, that during the lifetime of Mst.
Slamti Jan, his two sons namely Ahmad and Karam Elahi used to collect rents owner behalf and as such at least there was no doubt in the mind of the appellant, in respect of these two legal heirs and as such there was nothing to prevent the appellant from remitting the rent of the premises at least to these two persons for and on behalf of all the legal heirs of the deceased. The other alternative, that was open to the appellant, in case of his real doubt was, to have moved the learned Rent Controller and deposited the arrears of rents is respect of the premises, on this ground that he was not sure, who are the real legal heirs of the deceased. Unfortunately the appellant did not choose either of these options, which were open to him, but kept quiet right up to 1972, when the respondents filed the ejectment application on ground of default. It is an admitted position, when ejectment application in question was filed, the appellant was definitely in arrears of rents on his own admission from October, 1970 but he would not be considered to be a defaulter for such arrears till actually he received notice under section 13-A which was dated 30th August, 1971 and therefore default committed by him would be considered from 1st October, 1971 only, In addition to this, this is a second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact regarding the default period as well as quantum of rent and as such this finding of fact cannot be interfered with, in second appeal.
5. Therefore, in view of my above conclusion, that the appellant was not entitled to demand the proof by way of heirship certificate, after receiving notice under section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, be became wilful defaulter in payment of rents from 1st October, 1971, for all the arrears that were legally due from him.
6. Therefore, I find no merits in the above appeal, which is consequently dismissed, with no order as to costs.
7. However, before parting with the above appeal since it relates to the residential premises, I would allow period of 6 months to the appellants, with the consent of the learned Advocate for the respondents to vacate the premises in his occupation and hand over its vacant possession to the respondents, provided the appellant continues to deposit monthly rent of the premises in question, in accordance with the tentative rent order of the learned Rent Controller, in the Court of learned Rent Controller.