' NA IMUDDIN, J.--Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants Muhammad Ishaq was the tenant of House No,2/389 Azizabad, Federal 'B' Area, Karachi. He died during the pendency of First Rent Appeal No,935 of 1984 filed by him in the High Court of Sind at Karachi. The respondent is the owner and landlord of the house. The house was gifted to him by his maternal-uncle Qadeer Ahmad by gift deed registered with the Sub-Registrar, Karachi on 24-11-1979.
2. After the transfer of the property by gift to him, the respondent filed an application under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the father of appellants Nos. 2 to 6 and the husband of appellant No,1 on the ground of default in the payment of rent and requirement of the house for his and his family's use and occupation. In the written statement the predecessor- ininterest of the appellants (hereinafter called the tenant) admitted that he was the tenant of the house but he did not admit, for want of knowledge, the averment that the respondent was the owner and landlord of the house, and further pleaded that no notice as provided under section 18 of the Ordinance, was given to him by the respondent.
3. On the pleadings of the parties the Controller framed the following issues: "(1) Whether the opponent has committed default w.e.f, February, 1980?
(2) Whether the case premises is bona fide required by the applicant in good faith for his personal use and his family?
(3) What should the order be?"
' The Controller decided the issue of default against the respondent but he decided issue No,2 in his favour by order, dated 27-8-1984.
4. Aggrieved by the order the tenant filed an appeal before the Sind High Court as mentioned before. The High Court dismissed the appeal by judgment, dated 21-12-1986 upholding the finding on the issue of requirement of the house for use and occupation of the respondent and his family.
The tenant died after the judgment. Still feeling aggrieved by the judgment the appellants preferred a petition in this Court. By order, dated 15-3-1987 leave was granted to consider the submissions of the counsel for the appellants. The relevant part of the order reads: "Mr. Mahmood Iqbal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was throughout the case of the petitioners that Qadir Ahmad Ansar was the owner of the property and he had also filed an earlier ejectment case against their predecessor-ininterest which was dismissed and that they had no knowledge whatsoever regarding the transfer the demised premises in respondent's favour, and had not attorned to him as tenants, and in these circumstances it was incumbent on the learned Rent Controller to frame and decide the preliminary issue whether there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
' Learned counsel further submitted that since some doubt had been raised about the alleged gift of the property in respondent's favour, learned Rer Controller should have adopted the procedure laid down by this Court in the case of Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad 1983 SCM R 1064,"
5. We have heard Mr. Mahmood lqbal for the appellants and Mr. Khalid Ishaq for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellants raised three-fold contentions before us. His first contention was that the Controller ought to have framed an issue with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The second submission was that no notice was served as required under section 18 of the Ordinance and his third and last submission was that the gift in favour of the respondent was not valid.
' Taking up the first submission it may be stated that in the written statement the tenant had admitted that he was the tenant of the house. Regarding assertion of the respondent, in paragraph
(1) of the application that he was the owner and landlord of the house, the tenant, in paragraph (1) of his written statement, has stated as follows "That the contents of para. 1 of the application are denied for want of knowledge. It is not within the knowledge of the opponent as to when the applicant purchased this property from previous owner.
Therefore, the application is hit by the provision of section 18 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance.
' The respondent, in support of his averment that he was the owner of the house, produced the registered gift deed and stated that the registered notice under section 18 was returned undelivered. The envelope containing the notice was annexed to the application. In these circumstances the question of framing of a preliminary issue as to the relationship of landlord and tenant did not arise as, it may be re-emphasized, the tenant had admitted that he was the tenant of the house. Therefore, it was not necessary to frame an issue as to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
' In the case of Rahmatullah v. Ali Muhammad 1983 SCM R 1064 to which reference has been made in the order granting leave, it has been observed at page 1079 as follows:- "that the requirement of the relevant law contained in the Rent Restriction Ordinance is that the Controller cannot decide the question of relationship of landlord and tenant against the tenant when the landlord has not been able to establish his possession as landlord beyond reasonable doubt. In that situation the proper course for the Rent Controller would be to decide the issue against the landlord and advise him to first get his title established before seeking ejectment."
' These observations though very weighty, have no application to the facts of this case as the tenancy of the house by the tenant was admitted in his written statement. The title to the property has been established by the production of registered gift deed.
6. So far as the second submission is concerned it has become redundant because eviction of the tenant was not ordered on the ground of default and the question of notice was relevant only to the issue of default.
7. Taking up the third submission that the gift was not valid, it may be stated that once the property was transferred by registered gift deed, the respondent has become the owner of the house and entitled, as an owner thereof to receive the rent in accordance with the provision of section 55(6), clause (a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; and thus he became the landlord of the house within the meaning of section 2(f) of the Ordinance.
' In any case, it was not open to a tenant to question the validity of the gift in favour of the respondent. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Parvaiz Akhtar v. Dr. Muhammad Ahsan and others (PLD 1988 SC 734). The relevant portion of the judgment may be reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience. It reads: "In support of this petition it is contended that as the gift made by respondent No,3 in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was not approved by the Cantonment Board, it was invalid. It is difficult to accept this contention for the reason that the validity or invalidity of the gift was a matter between the Cantonment Board and the respondents. The petitioner being an outsider had no locus standi to call in question its validity."
' Similarly, in the present case the validity of the gift could be questioned by the heirs of Qadeer Ahmad if it was at all open to them and not by the appellants.
' We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. The appellant shall vacate the premises in dispute within four months from the date of this order, without notice to him on the part of the respondent and for these four months he would pay rent in advance to the respondent within two months. Parties are left to bear their own costs.