' Ejectment application filed by the respondent/landlord was granted by the learned Rent Controller, Karachi by his order, dated 31-3-1980 on the ground of default. Apart from the issue relating to default, two other issues had been framed and decided by the learned Rent Controller.
One issue was about service of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 and the other was whether any relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. All the issues were decided in favour of the landlord. Being aggrieved, the appellant/tenant has filed the present appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. I have heard Mr. Ejaz Ali, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Hafeez Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. It is an admitted position before me that the appellant came into possession of the premises in dispute in 1966 by receiving possession from the previous occupant namely, Willayat. It is also an admitted position that the appellant has neither paid rent to the Custodian nor paid or tendered any rent to the respondent. The property in question had been transferred to the respondent on 25-9-1975. According to the respondent, two notices under section 30 had been given by the respondent to the appellant. The first legal notice, according to the respondent, had been given in July, 1976 (Exh. 8-B) and the second notice in May, 1977 (Exh. 7-B). According to the appellant such notices were not received.
3. The settlement and evacuee laws had been repealed by Evacuee Properties and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. Therefore, at the time premises had been transferred to the respondent, the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 had already stood repealed. Section 30 of the 1958 Act was also not in existence at the time the premises were transferred to the respondent. However, it is submitted by Mr. Abdul Hafeez Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent that the case of transfer of the property in favour of the respondent was pending before the Settlement Authorities and as such in view of the provisions of Act XIV of 1975 (repeal law), his care was to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.
' It was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that although in section 30 of the 1958 Act there is a reference about the possession of the occupant being prior to 20-12-1958, an amendment in section 30 was brought about by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973 and section 30 was amended by omitting the words "on or before the 20th day of December, 1958". According to the learned counsel, therefore, even if the appellant had come into possession after 20-12-1958, he would become a statutory tenant.
4. The evidence about the pendency of the proceedings before the Settlement Authorities for transfer in favour of the respondent has not been brought on record. The question whether in the circumstances of this case the appellant could at all be deemed to be a statutory tenant has also not been considered by the Rent Controller. It may be observed that it is an admitted position that the appellant is not a contractual tenant of the respondent. According to Mr. Abdul Hafeez Siddiqui, the appellant is a statutory tenant in view of the provisions of Act XIV of 1974 (the repeal law) read with section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. 1958 as amended by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973. If at all the provisions of the repealed law can help the respondent, he will have to show that proceedings were pending before the Settlement Authorities prior to the repeal of the Settlement Laws. As observed earlier, such evidence is not on record.
5. Both learned counsel state that this is a fit case for remand to the learned Rent Controller so that he may record further evidence and then decided the case on merits including the legal points that arise for consideration. Impugned order, dated 31-3-1980 of the learned Rent Controller is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Rent Controller for decision according to law after giving an opportunity to both parties to lead such further evidence as they may wish to place before the learned Rent Controller. In connection with service of the notices under section 30 upon the appellant, it will be open to lead such further evidence for proving that such notices had been served upon the respondent.
6. This is a 1977 rent case. It is directed that the learned Rent Controller will decide this case within six months from receipt of record from this Court.
' There will be no order as to costs.