1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the IXth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi dated 19-11-1984, directing the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent within 120 days from the date of order.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the premises in question, which are situated in North Nazimabad, Karachi, had been purchased by the respondent from its original landlady by a registered Sale Deed on 12-4-1974. At that time the appellant was the tenant in respect of the aforesaid premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 200. Thereafter the respondent sent a notice, dated 15- 7--1975, purporting to be under section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, asking the appellant to pay rent to the respondent in respect of the aforesaid premises at the aforesaid rate. The rent had been demanded from the appellant by the respondent from 14-4-1974 and upto July, 1977. However, after receiving of such notice, the appellant failed to either pay or tender rent to the respondent and consequently a rent application was filed by the respondent before the Rent Controller On the basis of the pleadings of the arties the learned Controller framed issues and after recording evidence ca a to the conclusion that the appellant had committed default to the payment of rent and consequently he ordered his ejectment from the premises as pointed out above. Needless to say, that the preliminary issue relating to the relation, hip of the landlord and the tenant between the parties was also decided in favour of the respondent.
3. I have heard Mr. Abdul Karim Siddiq learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Khalid Hamid, learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Abdul Karim Siddiqui has raised the same objections before this Court as had been raised by the appellant before the learned Controller. Firstly, according to him, the rent in question was being regularly deposited by the appellant in Court since 31-7-1974 and consequently no default was committed by him. The second contention of Mr. Abdul Karim Siddiqui is that even a notice which was given by the respondent to the appellant and which purported to be under section 13-A, in fact, did not meet the requirements, of such notice as laid down by section 13--A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Mr. Khalid Hamid on the other-hand has fully supported the order of the learned Controller.
4. Turning to the contentions raised by Mr. Abdul Karim Siddiqui, I find both of them to be devoid of force. No doubt, the appellant's contention was that he had been depositing rent in Court through Rent Application No. 1823/1974 although no documentary evidence was produced by the appellant in support of his contention. However, even if the contention is totally accepted, admittedly the rent was being deposited by the appellant in the name of the original landlord and not in the name of the respondent. It may be pointed out that according to section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 where the ownership of a building in possession of a tenant has been transferred by way of sale, gift etc. From one person to another, no doubt it is obligatory upon the new owner to send an intimation of such transfer in writing by registered post to the tenant of such building, but after such notice has been received by the tenant, the law makes it obligatory on the tenant to pay the rent due within thirty days from the date when the intimation should in the normal course have reached him. Since in the instant case, the receipt of the notice by the appellant has not been denied, the appellant was clearly under an obligation pay rent- within thirty days to the respondent and failure on the part of the appellant to tender rent to the respondent or deposit the same in the Court within the time specified even after receipt of a notice under section 13-A from the respondent cannot absolve him of his liability under the law. Since the same was not admittedly done by the appellant, consequently, I agree with the findings of the Rent Controller in this regard that there was a clear failure on the part of the appellant to pay rent to the respondent in accordance with the requirements of section 13-A.
5. So far as the second agreement of Mr. Karim Ahmed Siddiqui is concerned, no doubt the notice, dated 15-7-1.975, which was sent by the respondent to the appellant, indicated that the appellant had vacated the premises in question before execution of the final sale-deed in respect thereof, and had been inducted into the premises by the respondent himself at a monthly rent of Rs. 200.
6. However, looking at section 13-A of the aforesaid Ordinance, the requirement of the section only appears to be that the person to whom the property has been transferred by the original landlord should intimate the tenant by notice about such transfer The notice should also specifically state the rent due which is payable by the tenant to such person. The notice which was admittedly sent by the respondent to the appellant and produced in evidence Exhibit O/11, shows that the same had complied with such basic requirements laid down by section 13-A. It may be pointed out that the object behind section 13-A only appears to be that the tenant should be duly informed in respect of the change of ownership of the premises before he can be made liable for the legal consequences of any default committed by him in payment of the rent for the premises occupied by him since after receiving notice from the respondent. The stand taken by the appellant himself in his own reply was that he had throughout continued to occupy the premises even after execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondent, it was his duty to offer the rent actually due to the respondent within the time as required by section 13-A. The same was admittedly not done by the appellant. Consequently the findings of the learned Controller that the appellant had committed default in the payment of the rent do not appear to be open to interference by this Court.
7. The appellant in C.MA. No. 2149/88 has requested for taking of additional evidence in respect of the proceedings whereby monthly rent was deposited by him through Misc. Rent Case No. 1823/84 and has further requested that the same may be taken into consideration alongwith the appellant's affidavit in evidence, dated 21-8-1984, but this application has become infructuous, in view of the above judgment and consequently, the same also stands dismissed.