' This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order, dated 24th April, 1984 passed by the 10th Senior Civil Judge, Rent Controller in Rent Case No,1022 of 1971, whereby he allowed rent application and directed the appellant to hand over the vacant possession to respondent within 2 months.
2. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal. Are that respondent S.M. Sirajuddin is one of the owner of building known as "AZEEM MARKET", Commercial Plot No,2, Block II, Sub Block 'B' situated in Nazimabad No,11 at Karachi-18. The appellant is tenant in respect of the shops bearing No,A-7 and A-8 of the said building at the rate of 1Rs,60 per month. It is stated in the rent application that appellant failed to pay rent in respect of the above shop from March, 1969 till 31st March, 1971 for 25 months.
3. The appellant filed written statement on 31st August, 1971 in which he denied the relationship as landlord and tenant between the appellant and stated that he is tenant of one Muhammad Naeem. His case in the written statement further is that respondent claimed to be the owner of Azeem Market and demanded rent at the increased rate of Rs,25$ which he refused and asked to give notice in writing in respect of change of ownership, and that he tendered rent by cheque and receipt was issued under the name and style S. Aziz. Bakhsh and others. He has further stated in the written statement that he was told by Naeem not to pay the rent any one, as there was dispute in respect of ownership between him and heirs of Mahboob Bakhsh. Thereafter he contacted the appellant and asked him to return the rent which he paid but the appellant requested him to wait some time so dispute of ownership be settled and then he would serve a legal notice in respect of ownership but no notice was served nor the respondent demanded rent from him.
4. I have heard Mr. Ikram Shaikh, appearing for the appellant. His contention is that at no time respondent served him notice as provided under section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ordinance'). He submitted that appellant in his written statement also took such plea which was not considered by the Rent Controller. He has referred to the cases reported in PLD 1982 Karachi. 591 and 273.
5. Mr. Syed Azizul Hassan, Advocate for the respondent argued that appellant had full knowledge about the change of the ownership and he also tendered the rent to respondent for two months for January, and February, 1969 therefore notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance as not necessary.
He contended that appellant has deliberately and willfully committed default for 25 months therefore he is liable to be evicted. He has referred to cases reported in PLD 1982 Kar. 770 and 981 SC, M R 179.
6. In the present case the only point for consideration is about he notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance. On this respondent Sirajuddin in his evidence Exh.1 has stated that he sent notice and produced acknowledgement as Exh. A-4. The portion of this document is Urn and does not bear the signature of appellant. The postal receipt produced as Exh. 5/4 is, dated 26-11-1970 another acknowledgement is of 10-2-1970 which are not relevant for the purpose of notice. From these dom.
Ments it is not clear whether notice under section 13-A technically was served upon the appellant but copy of notice issued to all the tenants of 23rd November, 1970 Exh.A/3 is on the record which shows that tenants were informed about change of ownership. The respondent has produced duplicate copy of rent receipt Exh.A/1 showing that appellant paid rent to respondent for two months by a cheque of which number is also given in the receipt. The Attorney of appellant Syed Wahid Ali, in his evidence Exh.2 stated that in the year 1969 respondent claimed that he was the owner and the landlord of the said shops and demanded rent at the increased rate which was not acceptable to the respondent. He further deposed that appellant paid him rent twice at the old rate but respondent demanded a proof showing that he was landlord of the building and a notice about change of ownership. He further stated that respondent was not prepared at all to accept the rent of said shop at the old rate. The appellant being in serious doubt contacted one Muhammad Naeem who told him not to pay rent to any one as there was dispute in respect of ownership. Thereafter he requested the respondent to return the rent which was already paid to him. He admits the receipt which is Exh.A/1. Now I proceed to discuss the case-law produced by the learned counsel of the parties.
7. In a case Irshad Ali, and 2 others v. Muhammad Omar, reported in PLD 1981 Kar.
273. It has been held that mere posting of notice to tenant by new landlord in event of transfer of property is not sufficient but intention behind the provision of section 13-A of the Ordinance is to acquaint tenant about the transfer of property in favour of new landlord. In this case the facts are different as appellant had paid rent of two months considering him as landlord.
8. In another case of Mrs. Mariam Fernandes v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan reported in PLD 1981 Kar. 591 ill which section 13-A has been interpreted and held that the object underlying this beneficial precision is clearly to enable the tenant to know whom he is to attorn, and the section being remedial provision should be construed liberally.
9. In a case of Messrs Eveready Pictures Ltd. v. Chaman Begum reported in PLD 1982 Kar. 770, it has been held as under:- "In the case before me it is admitted position that after the transfer of property in favour of respondent the appellant received intimation of transfer from the office of the Controller of Estate Duty and also paid rent to the respondent for about one year. In these circumstances the appellant was not entitled to any further notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance from the respondent."
10. In a case of Khuda Bux v. Muhammad Yaqoob and others reported in 1982 SCMR 179, it has been held that reason for giving notice under section 13-A is to inform the tenant that landlord had sold the property to another person so that rent could thereafter be paid by the tenant to the new landlord and when that knowledge is admitted even if a notice has not been served under section 13-A it would not stand in the way of Court in granting relief.
11. This rent case was filed in April, 1971 when default was claimed for 25 months which appellant admits that he had not paid the rent for the reason stated above. He even after filing of the rent case did not care to tender to respondent nor in any Miscellaneous Rent Application till 17-4-1973 when tentative rent order was passed. Run all the above reported cases it has been held that the object underlying for notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance is only to inform the tenant about change of ownership. In the present appeal it is not a case that respondent is not the owner.
Appellant has not led any evidence on this point. On the contrary his attorney in his evidence clearly stated that the appellant went to pay rent to the respondent which he refused. It is also admitted by the appellant that he paid rent for 2 months to the respondent and such receipt is on the record. From the above circumstances it is clear that appellant had a knowledge about change of ownership but his case is that one Muhammad Naeem prevented him not to pay the rent. Appellant has not examined Muhammad Naeem to corroborate his version. He also did not tender rent to original owned for such period. Not only this but even after filing of the rent cas till 17- 4-1973 he did not tender rent to any one and committed continuous default. On this refer to a case of A. Ghani v. Mst. Rasool Bibi and others reported in 1985 CLC 2066.
12. The upshot of the above discussion is that the order of the Rent Controller is proper and calls for no interference. In the resul that appeal is dismissed. Looking to the circumstances of this old case I grant 6 months time to the appellant to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession to the respondent.