1. This First Rent Appeal No. 375/86 had been filed against the order dated 4th May, 1986 of IIIrd Rent Controller Karachi South.
2. The brief facts are that Rent Case No. 690/81 was filed by Noor Muhammad on the ground of default in payment of rent from August, 19513 till filing of the rent case i.e. 9-2-198l. The written statement was filed and evidence was adduced before the Rent Controller who by an order dated 13th February, 1984 allowed the rent application and directed the appellant to hand over the vacant possession to the respondent within 60 days.
3. The appellant filed First Rent Appeal No. 136/85 in High Court. The appeal was partially accepted and order of the Rent Controller was set aside and it was held that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The case was sent back to the Rent Controller to decide it on merits and according to law.
4. The Rent Controller once again decided the rent case in favour of the respondent and directed the appellant to hand over the possession within 60 days.
5. I have heard Mr. Abdul Mateen Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. He has argued that application of the respondent for filing amended affidavit-in--evidence was dismissed on 12th August, 1984 therefore no further evidence has come on the record. It is argued that notice under section 13 of Displaced Persons Act was not served therefore the proceedings for default in payment of rent are null and void. He has referred to the case reported in 1972 SCM R 251.
6. Mr. Abdul Majeed appearing for the respondent submitted that notice was properly served and appellant was fully aware and rent was paid upto July, 1968. It is argued that since August, 1986 the appellant had not paid rent and this is a case of wilful default. He has referred the cases reported in 1986 SCM R 75 and 1984 CLC 3241.
7. The relationship between the parties was disputed and this issue has finally been decided by this Court in First Rent Appeal No. 136/85 as such in view of. The relationship between the parties, the appellant is bound to pay the rent to the respondents. Muhammad Ameen was the tenant of the premises and after his death in the year 1975 the appellant became statutory tenant and is in occupation of the said premises. This fact has not been denied in the written statement. The only plea taken by the appellant is that Habib Ahmed was landlord and after his death nobody come to collect the monthly rent.
8. Noor Muhammad in his evidence stated that building. No. O.T. 9/102, 103, 104 situated in Kagzi Bazzar Karachi was transferred to him by Settlement Department thereby he sent notice on 28-6- 1967 under section 13 of the Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation, and Compensation) Act through his Advocate to late Muhammad Ameen father of the appellant and which was duly served and after receiving the notice Muhammad Ameen paid the rent to his rent collector Habib Ahmed till August, 1968 at the rate of Rs. 40 per month. Thereafter the rent has not been paid. In support he has produced Provisional Transfer Order, a copy of the notice and acknowledgement receipt. He has also produced rent receipts. The case of appellant is that Habib Ahmed was the landlord and rent was paid to him and after the death of Habib Ahmed the rent was paid to his son Muhammad Zaheer. I do not like to enter into this controversy but only point out that this issue has been finally settled by the High Court in view of the findings the appellant was to pay the sent and in these circumstances appellant cannot get benefit of section 13 of the Displaced Persons Act. Not only this but from the findings of the Rent Controller who has also dealt this issue in detail it is clear that notice under section 13 was served on deceased Muhammad Ameen and rent was being paid to rent collector Habib Ahmed. It is on the record that since 1968 and even during the pendency of the rent case the appellant has not paid the rent nor deposited in this Misc: rent case and he is holding the premises since 1968 till now, without any payment. I am of the view that Rent Controller has rightly allowed the rent application and his order calls for no interference. Consequently the appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.