MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--This appeal by special leave arises out of the fact that the appellant, a public limited company, in Writ Petition No. 291 of 1986, filed in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, had impugned the order of Rent Controller, Rawalpindi, dated 12-9-1984 passed in ejectment application of respondents Nos. 3 to 8 seeking eviction of the appellant from the land, and also impugned the order, dated 16-2-1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi maintaining the aforesaid order, dated 12-9-1984.
2. Facts mentioned in the appeal briefly are that the appellant Company had obtained, on lease, a piece of land from Brig. Khairuddin Muhammad Idris, since dead, and paid advance rent of Rs.21,000. The monthly rent falling due thereafter was regularly paid till December, 1969, by the appellant-Company. Formal lease deed was executed and registered by the said Brig. K . M . Idris on 10-6-1974 in favour of the appellant-Company in respect of the said piece of land, embodying the detailed terms per Annexure-E.
3. On 23-8-1976 Brig. K.M. Idris died and his widow Begum Ghausun Nisa approached the appellant for payment of rent in respect of the aforesaid piece of land. After obtaining an indemnity bond the appellant started paying the rent to her in full and also appointed her as its dealer in respect of its Petrol Pump, installed on the aforesaid piece of land.
4. On 1-1-1980 Begum Ghausun Nisa also died. Then respondent No. 8 Major Shoaib Idris, son of late Brig. K.M. Idris approached the appellant for payment of rent but the appellant declined to do so and stated that he will pay rent to an heir of Brig. Idris who can give full discharge of the appellant's liability or the rent shall be paid to each of the heirs according to his or her share in the said piece of land.
5. In August, 1981 respondent No. 8 presented to the appellant a photo copy of a succession certificate, dated 22-6-1981 granted to him by the Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi for the recovery of Rs.5,500 being rent of the said piece of land for the period from 1-5-1980 to 31-3-1981 and the amount was paid by the appellant to respondent No. 8.
6. Later on, on 20-9-1981 respondent No. 8 wrote a letter to the appellant in which he stated six names of the legal heirs of late Brig. K.M. Idris in respect of the said land, which included his own name, and he also attached to the letter a photo copy of form P.T.I. In respect of the said property, and demanded that payment of rent be made to him. The appellant vide letter, dated 7-10-1981 stated that the rent cannot be paid to respondent No. 8 on the basis of form P. T.I. And asked him to present to the appellant proper document on the basis of which the appellant shall pay further rent to him alone and obtain proper discharge of liabilities.
7. Consequently, an application for ejectment under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, was filed in the Court of the learned Rent Controller, who, per order, dated 12-9-1984 allowed the application and passed ejectment order against the appellant. An appeal was filed by the appellant before the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, who, in paragraph 6 of his order, dated 16-2-1986 observed as follows:-- "Perusal of the correspondent between the parties about the death of the original landlord Brig. K.M.
Idris and Mst. Ghousun Nisa was very much in the knowledge of the appellant but they were insisting that the respondents should produce the title deed to show that they are the owners. In fact the appellant confused themselves between the ownership by way of inheritance and the ownership by way of any other alienation. The title deed is required when there is the alienation by way of sale or gifts. There is no title deed when the property devolves upon the legal heirs on the death of the last landlord. In this case the death of Brig. K.M.Idris was very much in the knowledge of the appellant. Thereafter, they have been making the payment of rent to Mst. Ghousun Nisa. After the death of Mst. Ghousun Nisa the rent was also paid to respondent No. 8 Major Shoaib Idris on the production of the succession certificate. It is also admitted fact that from April, 1981 to February, 1984 the appellant made no attempt to pay the rent to the landlord in any way." and, consequently, dismissed the appeal. Thereafter the appellant challenged the order of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 16-2-1986 in Writ Petition No. 291 of 1986 before the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide the impugned order, dated 15-6- 1986. The appellant then filed a petition for leave to appeal and leave was granted by this Court per order, dated 5-10-1986 to examine whether proper notice under section 13-A of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance was served upon the appellant and if the answer is in the negative then there would be no wilful default, expressly or impliedly on the part of the appellant and the impugned order would, therefore, be held to be without lawful authority.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim urged the following points: that the learned lower Courts erred in holding that notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance was served by the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 upon the appellant; that this erroneous finding by the Courts below was occasioned by a non-reading or mis-reading of the record and proceedings of the rent case because in the eviction petition itself no allegation was made that a notice under the said section had been served upon the appellant; that the opinion of the learned lower Courts that the appellant could have deposited the rent with the Rent Controller and should not have withheld the payment of rent for a long period of about three years, has omitted to take into consideration the material facts of the matter and amounts to a misdirection; that there is documentary proof on the record that the appellant had been continuously eager to pay the rent to any of the heirs of late Brig. K.M. Idris provided he or she could produce authority to receive the rent on behalf of the rest of the heirs. He further contended that the Courts below have reached the erroneous conclusion by holding that the appellant had made a wilful default, on the contrary; the appellant was always anxious to pay the rent in question and no reason whatsoever had been brought on the record to hold otherwise.
9. We have gone through the record and the judgments of the Courts below, and we do not agree with the arguments of the learned counsel. There is ample evidence on the record to show that the appellant had the requisite information that after the death of the original landlord namely Brig.
K.M.Idris, his widow Begum Ghousun Nisa had been receiving the rent, and on her death, respondent No. 8, son of late Brig. K.M. Idris produced a succession certificate to the effect that he was entitled to receive the arrears of rent and monthly rent in future. Letters, placed on the record, also reveal that there was no manner of doubt regarding the entitlement of respondent No.8 to receive the rent. Assuming for the sake of argument that there was some doubt in the mind of the appellant regarding the entitlement of respondent No. 8 to receive the rent, the appellant, as rightly held by the Courts below, could have deposited the rent in the Court of the learned Rent Controller.
In this regard the observation of the learned District Judge made in paragraph 6 of his order, dated 16-2-1986 as reproduced in paragraph 7 above is quite pertinent.
It has been held in Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Yousaf v. Mehrajuddin and others 1986 SCMR 751 as follows:-- "It is neither supported by statute nor any principle of law that if a notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance is not served that would amount to absence of relationship of landlord and tenant. The analogy of case-law under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
Act, 1958 is not attracted here. Thus the finding on issue of relationship has to be reversed and we do accordingly.
That being so, rent having admittedly not been paid after the institution of the application for eviction which has also been treated as notice under section 13-A the respondents were liable to be evicted. We order accordingly. In the light of foregoing discussion we dismiss the appeal with costs.
Learned counsel submitted that there is a Petrol Pump installed on the land, in question, which has got to be removed. We, therefore, allow period of one month for doing the needful, and handing over vacant site to the respondents thereafter.