1. ' The appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 30-1-1984 passed by the Rent Controller, Karachi striking off the defence of the appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. ' The respondent Mst. Shamim Khatoon filed an application under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) against the appellant alleging therein that the respondent has purchased the property in dispute from Muhammad Sharif by virtue of registered sale-deed. The appellant/ opponent is a tenant in respect of one room tenement at the rate of Rs,70 p.m. A notice as required under section 18 of the Ordinance has been duly served upon him but in spite of the service of the notice the appellant has failed to pay or tender the monthly rent w.e.f, 12-8-1981 to 30-6-1982. The appellant in his written statement pleaded that the premises in dispute originally belonged to Abdul Hameed and he used to pay the rent to him at the rate of Rs,50 p.m. Abdul Hameed died in July, 1981 leaving behind no legal heir and one Muhammad Stearif was the tenant of Abdul Hameed in respect of the adjoining room. He (Muhammad Sharif) fraudulently prepared forged documents and became the owner. The landlady acquired the property from Muhammad Sharif by virtue of sale-deed. The appellant deposited the rent is favour of Abdul Hameed at the rate of Rs,50 p.m. The appellant sent a notice to the landlady to show the documents but she failed to do so and filed the application for ejectment. The learned Rent Controller on 27-1-1983 passed an order under section 16(1) of the Ordinance in which the opponent was directed to deposit the rent in the following terms: - "The difference of arrears of rent at Rs,20 from September, 1981 to January, 1983 by 22-9-1983 and future rent at the rate of Rs,70 p.m."
3. ' The respondent/landlady also moved an application under section 16(2) of the Ordinance on 4-4- 1983 for striking off the defence of the appellant. The appellant also moved a review application for the suspension of the rent order as the title of 'the landlady was disputed. These two applications were heard together and the Rent Controller dismissed the review application and allowed application of the landlady by order dated 30-1-1984. The learned Rent Controller in his order has observed that the report was obtained from the Nazir in respect of the deposit of rent wherefrom it has transpired that the opponent has not deposited a single penny in the present case in terms of the order of the Court dated 27-1-1983 and has deliberately continued to deposit it in Miscellaneous Rent Case No, 920 of 1982 which has nothing to do with the applicant. The appellant has challenged before the Rent Controller the landlady's title to the property in dispute but the learned Rent Controller has not given any finding on this contention. It has also been observed that without entering into the question whether the order dated 27-1-1983 is proper or it suffers from legal infirmities, fat was the duty of the opponent to have complied with the said rent order. In fact the Rent Controller has proceeded on the presumption that as the appellant failed to deposit the rent, therefore, the defence has to be struck off. I have heard by the learned counsel for the parties.
4. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order under appeal is' illegal for want of jurisdiction.
5. ' On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the Controller had made a direction for deposit of the arrears of rent and future monthly rent and as the appellant has failed to deposit the rent, therefore, his defence was struck off. The learned counsel stated that the landlady was bona fide purchaser for consideration through registered documents. A notice as required under section 18 of the Ordinance was served upon the appellant but in spite of the service he failed to deposit the rent. The learned Rent Controller has made summary enquiry under section 16(1) of the Ordinance and directed the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent and this direction of the Rent Controller was legal. The Rent Controller has directed that Rs,20 shall not be withdrawn by the landlady till the decision of the rent application. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to a case of MRs, K.Kazmi v. Syed Kamaluddin Shah reported in 1982 SCMR 576 wherein it has been observed that the respondent being the successor-in-interest of the original landlord, and having served a proper notice on the appellant giving particulars of the registered deed, stepped into the shoe of original landlord. No further act was necessary. In law, either on his part or that of the appellant, to bring about or complete the relationship of landlord and tenant. This authority is distinguishable as the appellant has not admitted Muhammad Sharif as his landlord. It is further submitted that the appellant has not specifically raised the plea that their does not exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, there was no necessity of framing the issue and decide it. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred the section 19(5) which provided that the Controller shall, instead of formally framing issues arising between the parties, state them briefly in the judgment and shall record findings on each such issue separately. He further contends that framing of the issue is not necessary. This contention has no force. The framing of issue may not be necessary when the Controller has the jurisdiction in the matter but in case where the jurisdiction of the Controller has been challenged, he has first to determine his jurisdiction. After he decides that he has jurisdiction in the matter, only then he would proceed in accordance with the provision of Ordinance. The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that there is mere allegation that Abdul Hameed was the landlord of the appellant. An objection about the jurisdiction of the Controller has been taken which can only be decided after holding enquiry. The petitioner has specifically stated in his written statement that the respondent is not his landlady. The respondent/landlady himself produced a copy of the application moved by Muhammad Sharif against the appellant for his eviction from the premises in dispute. In that application Muhammad Shari! Has stated that he has purchased the premises from his previous owner. The name of the previous 'Amer is not mentioned by Muhammad Sharif. It cannot be said that a frivolous defence has been put up by the appellant. In fact that appellant has stated that Muhammad Sharif through forged document has become owner of the premises and transferred the ownership to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent is not aware about the result of the application moved by Muhammad Shard against the appellant. Under the Ordinance "landlord" means the owner of the premises and includes a person who is for the time being authorized or entitled to receive rent in respect of such premises. There is a departure from the definition given in the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance .Where landlord has been defined any person for the time being and entitled to receive rent: Under the Ordinance and the drone is also landlord, therefore, once a person becomes the owner of the property be becomes landlord. The appellant has not admitted Muhammad Sharif as his landlord. Admittedly the landlady has purchased the premises from Muhammad Sharif. He has even denied that Muhammad Sherif was owner of property. In such a situation the Controller before assuming jurisdiction must determine the relationship of the parties. As this has not been done, the Controller could not pass an order under section 16(1) and (2) of the Ordinance.
6. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Ghulam Hussain v. Abdur Rehman and 2 others reported in PLD 1982 Lah. 519 and Rehmatullah v. All Muhammad and another reported in 1983 SCMR 1064. These cases support the contention of appellant.
7. In the result I accept this appeal and set aside the orders dated 27-1-1983 and 30-1-1984 and the case is remanded to the Rent Controller with the direction to frame issue with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant and after making necessary enquiry decide this issue. If issue is decided in favour of the landlady then an order under section 16(1) be passed. The appeal is allowed as such but there is no order as to costs.