This appeal is directed against the order of the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (West), Karachi, dated 25-11-1986 passed in Rent Case No. 2845/1985, whereby the ejectment application filed by the respondent against the appellants for their eviction from the premises bearing No. A/169, Block `H', North Nazimabad, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as the demised premises), on the ground of default in payment of rent. The appellants have been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within 90 days from the date of order.
2. The fact:, giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are these. On 20-7-1978 the respondent filed an application under section 13 of -the repealed West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for eviction of the appellants from the demised premises on the ground of default in payment of rent from 1-10-1972 till the date of the filing of the ejectment application a Rs. 450 per month. The appellants filed written statement on 22-11-1979 pleading, inter alia, that consequent to the nationalisation of the Schools by Government w.e.f. 1-10--72, under the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 the Ejectment Application was not maintainable in law, that there was no privity of contract between the appellants and the respondent and as such there did not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between them, that the rent agreement dated 22-5-68 to which the appellants are not a party and which had already expired in 1968, was not binding on the appellants and that the previous rent agreement showing Rs. 100 as monthly rent and previous rent receipt showing Rs. 450 as monthly rent appeared to be bogus, unauthentic and antidated and as such they were denied.
3. The learned Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue regarding the existence or otherwise of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In support of his case, the respondent Mr. Muzzammil Hussain, examined himself, whereas no evidence was led by the appellants. The learned Rent Controller decided the said preliminary issue affirmatively i.e. In favour of respondent vide his order dated 16-10-79 and set up the case for filing of accounts for purpose of passing an order under section 16(1) of the Ordinance. However, it was on 27-11-80 that an application under section 3(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called `the Ordinance) was presented on behalf of the appellants for dismissal of the Ejectment Application on the ground that consequent to issuance of Sind Government Notification No. VIII-3--S.O.J./1975, dated 29-7-1980 exempting the premises of the Colleges and Schools, taken over under MLR 118 the Ejectment Application was not maintainable. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 18-2-80 accepting the contention of the respondent, held that the ejectment, application had become infructuous and dismissed the same accordingly. The respondent filed an appeal against the said order of dismissal in this Court vide F.R.A. No. 172/81. This Court vide its judgment dated 4-10-80 allowed the said appeal, set aside the order of Rent Controller dated 18-2-80 remanded the case to the learned Rent Controller for decision according to law.
4. Upon receipt of the case from this Court, the learned Rent Controller served the parties with the notices who appeared before him. It was brought to the notice of the learned Rent Controller by the counsel for the respondent that an application for disposal of the case, without recording the evidence, and ordering the ejectment of the appellants on account of wilful and negligent default, was pending disposal since 16-4-80. After hearing the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties on that application, the learned Rent Controller vide his impugned order allowed the ejectment application and ordered the eviction of the appellants as stated above. Hence this appeal at the instance of the tenant.
5. I have heard Mr. Khan Sanaullah Khan, who appeared on behalf of the appellants. Initially he attempted to argue that after the remand of the case, the learned Rent Controller was obliged to record the evidence of the parties and decide the case on merits. However, after referring to the remand order wherein a direction had been given that the case shall be decided afresh by Rent Controller according to law, he did not pursue this argument any further. He, however, attempted to assail the impugned order by contending that since there was no direct agreement of tenancy existing between the respondent, and the appellants, the learned Rent Controller should have, in all fairness, recorded the evidence of the parties instead of allowing the application in the manner he has done. It has, according to him, led miscarriage of justice. Mr. Shafqat Hussain, on the other hand, vehemently supported the impugned order on the basis of the authorities relied upon by the learned Rent Controller in his impugned order. He also invited my attention to the Supreme Court judgment in Province of Punjab Through the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Education Department etc. N. Civil Judge, Lahore and others (1982 SCM R 692) wherein it was held as under:-- "It is evident, as observed by the Courts below that there is nothing in section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, which makes any distinction between a private tenant and a Government Department as a tenant. The Government Departments are required to pay rent like any other private tenant and would be equally liable to ejectment on default in payment of rent in accordance with law. As tenants, a Government Department and a private citizen are both obliged to tender rent to landlord. Similarly, both are liable to ejectment on default in payment of rent in accordance with law. It is not open to, the Government Department to take---------of its own the landlord as in the present case. It is required to pay him the rent and in doing so the department is doing him no favour, as it is their duty, in law, to tender rent to the landlord. The fact the building had been hired to run a School makes it all the more obligatory on the respondent to have exercised greater vigilance in paying the rent in time."
6.In 1979 CLC 118 a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court after referring to a number of authorities delivered a well considered judgment, holding as under:-- "23. It is clear that opinion is almost uniform at least on the point that where the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed contumaciously and a frivolous objection is taken to the landlord-- -s title, it is not necessary to take any further proceedings once the default is admitted:"
7. I find that in the instant case the learned Rent Controller has not committed any error in ordering the ejectment of the appellants without recording the evidence of the parties. He had recorded a finding regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant as far back as 16-10-79. The appellants, I am informed by Mr. Shafqat Hussain, had not assailed this finding in -the earlier appeal (F.RA. 172/81). It is clearly borne out from the record that notwithstanding the above order, whereby the issue regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the appellant was decided in the affirmative, no effort was made to tender amount of rent claimed.
8. I do not, therefore, find any justification to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller which is strictly in consonance with the case law laid down by the superior Courts.
9. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
M.Y.H/D-54/K Eviction upheld