NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This is an appeal against the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the second appeal of the present appellant holding him liable to be ejected.
2. The only point which calls for determination is whether a tenant can be ordered to be ejected under the provisions of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, who is in possession of an evacuee property without giving a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, intimating him of the fact of transfer as provided in proviso (b) of subsection (1) of section 30 of the said Act even though he may have been found to have sublet the property? The facts as found by the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority and accepted by the learned Single Judge which bear on this question are these. The respondent (Mst. Akbari Begum) was transferred the shop in question and a P. T. 0. was issued in her favour on 19th March 1963. She issued a registered notice (Exh. P. 1) to the tenant, (the present appellant) on 22-7-63 under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, hereinafter called the Act. The acceptance of the said registered notice was allegedly refused by the appellant and a Record Clerk was produced who stated that he identified the signatures of the postman. The Rent Controller was of the opinion that "the alleged refusal of the registered notice Exh. P. 1 by the respondent No, 1 (present appellant) is not believed by the Court. The postman himself should have been put to cross-examination. The formal proof of Abdul Qayyum, the Record Clerk, is not accepted." However, the other allegation of the landlady that the present appellant had sublet the shop was found to be correct; therefore, the present appellant was held to be liable to ejectment. The contention raised before the learned Single Judge was that as the learned Rent Controller did not believe the refusal of the registered notice Exh. P. 1, therefore the statutory notice under section 30 of the Act was not proved and that in its absence there could not be any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ; in consequence the penalty of ejectment could not be incurred by the tenant even if he had admitted that he knew that the property was transferred to the landlady. The learned Single Judge expressed the view that the tenant was liable to eviction firstly, as contemplated by clause (i) of subsection (3)of section 30 of the Act, namely if he was required to pay the arrears of rent to the landlord within three months of the receipt of the notice and he did not tender the arrears of rent due and, secondly, if after the transfer of the property he sublets or otherwise parts with the possession of the property or causes any injury or damage to the property as provided in clause (ii) of subsection (3) of section 30.
According to the learned Judge clause (3) (ii) of section 30 is an independent clause in which there is no mention of any notice of transfer, although such a notice has been mentioned in sub- clause (i) of clause (3) of section 30. If the tenant has the knowledge that certain property which he is occupying has been transferred to a certain individual and he either sublets it or commits any act of injury or waste regarding that property he cannot seek protection against eviction from that property under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.
3. In support of this appeal learned counsel for the tenant has contended that notice of transfer contemplated by proviso (b) of subsection (1) of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act is a condition precedent for the commencement of the period of protection. If no notice in terms of the said proviso is given by a transferee to the occupant of the premises, the transferee cannot exercise any control over the occupant nor can he enforce any remedy in the Court of law against him. He submitted that it is only when a notice of transfer is given that the period of protection starts and that if during the continuance of that period the occupant does any of the acts mentioned in clause (ii) of subsection (3) of section 30 of the Act his protection can be taken away. The learned counsel h is drawn our attention to the words "after the transfer" used in clause (3)(ii) of section 30 and stated that these words are to be read along with the provisions of subsection (1) of section 3 and if the two provisions are read together the result is that if after the transfer notice which must be given by the transferee to the occupant, the latter does any of the acts mention in clause (3)(ii) he shall lose the specified protection.
4. To evaluate the argument of the learned counsel of the appellant it would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant portions of the provisions of section 30 of the Act :
(1) Where any person is in possession of any evacuee house or shop on or before 20th day of December 1958 then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law such person shall be deemed to be a tenant of the transferee on the same terms and conditions as to payment of rent or otherwise on which he held it immediately before transfer: Provided that--
(a) it shall be lawful for the transferee to charge a rent on the basis of the latest assessment carried out by the Municipality or local authority, as the case may be for other properties in the locality generally; and (b) it shall not be lawful for the transferee to eject such persons from the house or shop for a period of six years . . . . from the date of transfer, notice of which shall be given by the transferee to the tenant within one month of such transfer by registered post (acknowledgment due).
(2) .............................................
(3) nothing in proviso (b) to subsection (1) shall apply to a tenant.
(i)who has not within three months from the date of receipt of a notice of demand sent to him by the transferee by registered post (acknowledgment due) paid or tendered the amount of rent or arrears of rent due for any period after the transfer; or (ii)who after the transfer, has sublet or otherwise parted with the possession of the house or shop or any part thereof ....
(4) On the expiry of the period mentioned in proviso (b) to subsection (1) or on the contravention of any of the provisions of subsection (3) whichever is earlier the relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee and the tenant shall be regulated in accordance with the law for the time being in force relating to such relationship."
The question falling for consideration is whether a landlord can eject an occupant without issuance of a notice under proviso (b) of subsection (1) of section 30 of the Act?
5. The provisions of section 30 reproduced above lead, on analysis, to the following conclusions: (a)the relationship of landlord and tenant between persons covered by section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act is not dependent upon the issuance of any notice. If the occupant was a tenant in the premises before the transfer, then he automatically becomes a tenant of the transferee on the same terms.
(b)the landlord cannot charge rent at a rate higher than the rent assessed by the Municipality or other local authority.
(c)the tenant has a right to occupy the aforesaid property in that capacity for a period of six years.
(d)the period of six years is to take effect from the date of transfer of the property if notice thereof is sent within one month of such transfer and in case such notice is not sent within the aforementioned period of one month, from the date of the receipt of such notice by the tenant.
(e)the protection stands withdrawn if the rent is not paid or tendered within three months of the receipt of notice of demand or otherwise parted with by tenant.
(f)on the expiry of the period of protection mentioned in proviso (b) of subsection (1) or on contravention of the provisions of subsection (3) the relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee and the tenant shall be regulated in accordance with law regulating such relationship for the time being in force.
6. From the above analysis it would appear that the present appellant came into existence automatically, by operation of law and no other notice is required for the purpose of constituting the said relationship because in this case no issue was claimed by the occupant on non-existence, before the transfer, of tenancy. It would further appear from the above analysis that the protection afforded to persons covered by section 30 of the Act is not available to those tenants who after the transfer of the property sublet or otherwise part with its possession. If subletting or parting with possession is established then contravention of clause (ii) of subsection (3) of section 30 is proved and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee and the statutory tenant falls to be regulated in accordance with law for the time being in force, relating to such relationship, namely, the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, under which no notice is necessary in such circumstances. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below in this respect is to the effect that respondent No, 1 had sublet the shop in question to Muhammad Yamin after the transfer of the shop in favour of Mst. Akbari Begum respondent. This follows from the circumstance that the evidence led by the parties was to the effect that 9 or 10 months ago (as from the date on which evidence of the parties was recorded) the shop was sublet to Yamin. Since the notice of transfer was issued to the tenant on 22-7-63 and the application for ejectment was brought on 9-7-64 and evidence of the parties was recorded thereafter, there is no doubt that the subletting took place after the shop was transferred to the landlady. Under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, a tenant who has without the written consent of the landlord transferred his rights under the lease or sublet the entire premises or any portion thereof is liable to eviction vide section 13(ii)(a) of the Ordinance. Thus both under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act read with the law in force regulating relationship of landlord and tenant the appellant was liable to eviction.
7. The result is that we agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that clause (ii) of subsection
(3) of section 30 of the Act is an independent provision and is not controlled by the provisions of sub-clause (i) of subsection (3) of section 30 and that in the circumstances of this case it was not necessary for the transferee to give other notice under section 30 of the Act to the appellant. This appeal is accordingly dismissed, but with no order as to costs.