It is a writ petition arising out of rent case. The landlord, Munshi Ahmad Hassan (now dead), brought air application against the writ petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, for his ejectment from a room of his House No.SI.23.S.27, on the allegation that he had failed to pay rent therefore at the rate of Rs.200 per month from August, 1980 till August, 1982, and that he needed the room for his personal use. He, however, relinquished his claim to the arrears accruing prior to the institution of the ejectment application.
2. The writ petitioner resisted his eviction denying to be tenant and pleading non-joinder of other persons of the house as necessary party. He added that the petition was brought mala fide with a view to bypass an order of status quo passed by Civil Judge in a suit brought against the landlord by Noor Muhammad, and that he was given no notice either under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, or under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. He further stated that the PTD obtained by the deceased Munshi Ahmad Hassan was based upon misrepresentation and fraud inasmuch as the room in question was not transferred to him. He affirmed that he did not pay rent to him, nor was he required to do because of the absence of the notices referred to above.
3. The Rent Controller held that after repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, there was no requirement of issuing any notice under section 30 thereof, but took the view that it was essential under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. He further found that since no such notice was served by the landlord upon the petitioner-tenant, he proceeded to dismiss the application for` ejectment. 1n appeal, however, this finding was reversed by the learned Additional District Judge, in whose view, notice under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance was not required. He accepted the appeal and ordered the petitioner's ejectment. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner has brought the present writ petition.
4. The grounds, namely, of the absence of notices under the two provisions, were agitated in support of the writ petition. I do trot think the objection in regard to the notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, is entertainable .Now. In Muhammad Ramzan v. Ch. Bashir Abroad (PLD 1981 SC 340), it was ruled authoritatively that such a notice was not necessary after the repeal of laws. Likewise, the other notice, under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, was equally not needed. The section contemplates such notice when one person transfers the demised property to another by way of sale, gift, inheritance or any other manner. It was not the plea of the writ petitioner that the deceased landlord, Munshi Ahmad Hassan, had purchased the room in question from any other person by any act inter vivos like a sale, gift, or by inheritance. Instead this was a transfer in his favour made by the Settlement Department and for all purposes, he was the original transferee thereof. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Makhan Bano v. Haji Abdul Ghani (PLD 1984 SC 17) in support of contention that denial of tenancy on his part was not contumacious and that the default on his part in making payment of the rent in such circumstances would not suffice to entail forfeiture of tenancy. He stressed that the relief of ejectment was equitable and discretionary in nature, which may be refused when the petitioner-tenant had good grounds to deny his title, There is no cavil with the proposition but the circumstances of the case show that the petitioner went to the extent of denying the genuineness of the PTD obtained by the deceased-landlord. His, stance was that the PTD was obtained by him by it representation and fraud and that the particular room was not included therein. He failed to prove this ground of defence. The corollary was that he had raised this objection without any justification, rather contumaciously. In other words; he-went to any length in stalling his eviction and did not confine his defence to the non-issue of notice. Support was sought also from Qaisar Zamani v. Rasheeda' Begum and 2 others (1985 CLC 596) for the view that denial of the landlord's title, being not contumacious the tenant may not be ejected. This was a case falling under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, where, on facts, one person had transferred the premises to another. It is, therefore, distinguishable on this very ground.
5. There is no substance in the writ petition. The same is dismissed with costs.
H.B.T./M-1356/L Petition dismissed