' These are the three Rent Appeals filed under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which arise out of the same order. 1, therefore, propose to dispose them of by one judgment.
2. The facts leading to these appeals are that the premises bearing Custodian No,1-C-12 was transferred to the respondents by the Settle ment Authorities, vide P.T.D. No,9020/1106, dated 11-8- 1976. Mutation of the said premises in the City Survey Record was also effected in the name of respondents. The appellants being in occupation of the above said premises since before its transfer to the respondents, became statutory tenants of the respondents in respect of the said premises and liable to pay the rent to them. The respondents, therefore, sent a notice, dated 5-8- 1980 through their Advocate under section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act intimating the appellants about the transfer of the premises in favour of the respondents and calling upon them to pay Rs,7,200 as rent for the last three years at the rate of Rs,200 per month. The respondents approached the appellants several times but they did not pay any heed to it and failed to pay any rent to the respondents. The respondents, therefore, filed an ejectment application bearing No,26 of 1981 against the appellants on 30-4-1981 under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the ground of default in payment of rent which was allowed ex parte by the learned Rent Controller by his order, dated 31-8-1981 directing the appellants to vacate the disputed premises within sixty days of the order. The appellants being aggrieved by this order have filed these appeals on 25-9-1981.
3. Mr. Khawaja Sharful Islam, learned counsel for the appellants has raised a number of contentions which are summarized as follows:-
(i) The ejectment order has been passed without service of notice on the appellants.
(ii) No affidavit in ex parte proof was filed according to law.
(iii) No notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act, 1958 has been served on the appellants.
(iv) Rent claimed at the rate of Rs,200 per month was not according to law. According to him the rent fixed by the Custodian was Rs,7 per month.
(v) The premises being entered in the name of 'Hindu Panchayat' in the Custodian Record, was not available for transfer under Settle ment Scheme. In any case, the premises belong to Sind Auqaf Department.
(vi) The appellants are in possession of separate portions of the premises. One ejectment application against the three occupants was not maintainable. Respondents ought to have filed three separate applications and paid separate court-fees thereon.
4. Now I proceed to examine each contention separately. As regards the first contention, it is apparent from the Diary Sheet of the Rent Case that the application was filed on 30-4-1981. Notice to the appellants was issued for 24-5-1981 which was received by Noorul Hassan for himself and on behalf of Mehmoodul Hassan and Ahmed Hassan who are the appellants before me. This endorsement by Noorul Hassan is at page 61 of the lower Court record. On 25-5-1981 in the Diary Sheet the service of the notice on appellants was recorded by the learned Judge. On that very day, one Muhammad Iqbal Alvi, Advocate partner of Mr. Shahzad Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants/opponents and filed an application for adjournment before the learned Rent Control ler on the ground that Mr. Shahzad has gone to Karachi. This application is at page 59 of the lower Court record. The learned Rent Controller granted the application for adjournment and put off the case to 6-7-1981, for written statement of the appellants/opponents. On 6-7-1981 again the partner of the Advocate for the appellants requested for adjournment which was also granted and the matter was put off to 20-7-1981 for written statement. On 20-7-1981 although the Advocate for the appellants was called absent the matter was put off to 27-7-1981 for written statement. On 27-7- 1981 again none appeared for the appellants. Their side was, therefore, closed and the matter was adjourned for filing affidavit in ex parte proof by the respondents. On 17-8-1981 the affidavit in ex parte proof was filed by the respondents along with original copy of P.T.D. and four City Survey Extracts. The matter then was put off to 31-8-1981 for arguments. On 31-8-1981 again none appeared for the appellants. The order of ejectment was accordingly passed in their absence. In view of this record and proceedings of the lower Court the contention of the appellants' counsel has no force and is without any substance.
5. As regards the second contention that no affidavit ex parte proof was filed according to law, I also find the same as without any substance. Affidavit in ex parte proof duly signed on behalf of the landlords/respondents and sworn in the office of Court of Rent Controller fulfills the requirement of an affidavit as to attestation. The contention of the learned counsel that the Oath Commissioner has not attested this affidavit is without any force. The same and similar type of attestation also appears on the ejectment application which appears to have been made in the office of the Court.
6. The third contention that no notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act, 1958 was served on the appellants is also without any force. A photo stat copy of the leg notice, dated 5-8- 1980 under section. 30 of the Displaced Persons Ak, 1958 issued by Mr. Sabir Hussain Qidvai, Advocate on behalf of the respondents .which was sent to the appellants by Registered Post A.D. is on the record at page 27. In view of this, the notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act, 1958 will be deemed to have been duly served on the appellants.
7. The fourth contention that rent was claimed at the rate of Rs,200 per month by the respondents whereas the appellants were liable, if at all, to pay the rent at the rate Rs,7 per month only, has no force in law. I inquired from the Advocate for the appellants if the appellants paid or tendered the rent even at the rate of Rs,7 per month to the respondents and his reply was in the negative. It is assumed, for the sake of arguments, that the demand of rent at the rate of Rs,200 per month was not in accordance with law the appellants were not absolved from their liability to pay the rent even at the rate of Rs,7 per month. Admittedly they have not paid or offered to pay any amount as 'rent to the respondents at any relevant time at any rate whatsoever.
8. In support of the fifth contention that the premises belongs to Sind Auqaf Department, Mr. Khawaja Sharful Islam has invited my attention to P.T.D. It is correct that the said document bears the name of 'Panchayat' as the evacuee owner of the premises. The learned counsel has also invited my attention to a notice issued by the Inspector, Evacuee Trust Property which is dated 7-11- 1982. There is also a Bill, dated 20-12-1981 for Rs,12,348 in the name of Noor Hussain, but prior or after the issue of said notice by the Evacuee Property Trust Board no rent has, however, been paid by the appellants to the Evacuee Property Trust Board. In any case, this cannot be a ground for the appellants to challenge the title of the respondents in these proceedings. The Rent Controller's Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction and for specific purpose. Once the Permanent Transfer Deed to prove the title of the landlord is produced by the landlord before the Controller, the title cannot be assailed, on the ground that the property was wrongly transferred as the property belongs to Evacuee Property Trust Board, as in this case. Reliance may be placed on a number of judicial pronouncements on the subject namely: ' Sardar Ali v. Ghulam Muhammad 1982 CLC 1844; Ghulam Rasool v. Din Muhammad PLD 1967 Lah.
655; Sikandar Khan v. Muhammad Amin PLD 1979 Kar. 59 and Abdul Karim v. Muhammad Ibrahim 1976 SCMR 79.
9. The last contention of the learned counsel that the appellants are in possession of separate portions of the premises which necessitated the filing of separate ejectment applications is also without any substance. There is only one P.T.D. issued against one transfer price. It makes no difference if the appellants, who are real brothers, under some mutual arrangement, are occupying the different portions of the premises according to their convenience or need. The premises bearing one Custodian number only has been transferred to the respondents as one unit. There is only one assessm ent of rent by the Custodian @ Rs,7 per month. There is no separate assessment in respect of each portion of the premises as claimed by the appellants.
10. In the result, I dismiss all the three appeals but without any order as to costs, as there is none present on behalf of the respondents.