1. ' The respondent filed an application in respect of House bearing ,No.L.R.8/41 Chela Ram Compound near B.P. Factory, Karachi. In the ejectment application, it is stated that the appellant is the tenant from July, 1962 at the rate of Rs.5 P.M. and has not paid rent upto eptember, 1979. The respondent filed an application under M.L.0.20 and it seems that the parties had entered into an agreement of tenancy for a period of 11 months and the appellant had agreed to pay the rent. As no rent was paid the respondent filed ejectment application on the ground of default and also for personal bona fide use and occupation. The appellant in the written statement pleaded that her husband is the owner of the property and that he has filed Suit No. 3982 of 1979 for declaration and permanent injunction. She denied that she is the tenant of the premises. She admitted to have appeared before the Military Court under threat and coercion, and that agreement was executed by her against her will. All other allegations made in the application were denied. The learned Controller by the impugned order held that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and on the ground of default ejectment was granted.
2. ' Mr. Abdul Karim Lakhan the learned counsel has contended that the appellant has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and as a suit for declaration has been filed, the title of the respondent is not fully established. From the evidence on record, it seems that the Settlement Authorities has transferred the disputed property to the respondents husband and P.T.O. and P.T.D. was issued in his favour. After his death, the name of his legal heirs including the respondent has been mutated. The appellant mainly relies on the fact that in the year 1949 her husband had purchased the property from one Hindu owner Chela Ram. This sale if at all made by the Hindu owner in 1949 required confirmation by the Custodian. No such order of confirmation has been produced by the appellant. In any event, no confirmation can be made after the property has been acquired by the Government. After the transfer to the respondent, he became the true and legal owner of the property free from all encumbrances. In the circumstances, the appellant has not been able to create any genuine doubt with regard to the ownership of the respondent.
3. Consequently her plea that her husband is the owner of the property fails.
4. ' The question next arises whether she is the tenant of the disputed premises. Although conflicting averments have been made by the respondent that she was the tenant from 1952. In this regard Mr. Lakhan has produced photo copy of judgment in a case which was filed by the respondent against the husband of the appellant treating him to be a tenant. However, Mr. Faizanul Haq, the learned counsel for the respondent has rightly contended that this may have been the position prior to the execution of the agreement between the parties on 1-10-1977 but from that date the appellant was accepted as a tenant, and at no stage her husband had come forward to challenge that agreement.
5. ' Mr.Lakhan, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the agreement was executed under duress and against her will and is not binding. Except mere words of the appellant there is nothing on record to show that this contention has been established. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the matter had proceeded before the Military Court and in pursuance of her undertaking she had executed this agreement. According to the respondent the appellant and respondent had agreed before the Military Court and according to a document Exh.
6. 5.0 it seems that on 28-8-1971 the appellant had agreed to enter into an agreement for a period of one year to pay rent at the rate of Rs.12 P.M. and also clear the arrears at the rate of Rs.5 P.M. and had also agreed to produce a copy of the rent deed in that Court. In pursuance with this settlement an agreement was executed on 1-10-1977. It, therefore, follows that the agreement was entered into under the order of the Military Court passed under M.L.O.
20. If this position is correct then by virtue of the Military Courts Validation of Orders Ordinance 1980 this agreement and the order passed by the Military Court under Martial Law Order 20 and any proceeding made thereunder shall be deemed to have been passed under Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 or the Ordinance which was in force at that time. A right to file an appeal within 30 days was also conferred. As the order passed in proceedings taken under Martial Law Order 20 have been validated and no appeal has been filed against that order, the agreement and the proceedings including the order are valid and binding on the parties. Taking the agreement as valid the appellant has become a tenant of the premises and was bound to pay rent in terms thereof. The admitted position is that the appellant has not paid any rent, therefore, the learned Controller has rightly held that default has been committed by the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant is allowed four months time to vacate the premises.
7. Eviction maintained.