' In this first rent appeal, the appellants, who are the legal heirs of deceased Abdul Karim have challenged the order dated 30-11-1986 of the Rent Controller allowing the ejectment application filed by respondents who are the sons of Dildar and ordering ejectment of the appellants from the premises in question. I have heard Mr. Kazim Hasan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. H.A.
Rahmani, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Deceased Abdul Karim was admittedly the tenant of deceased Dildar in respect of the shop in question. According to the deceased Abdul Karim the landlord (Dildar), at some point of time had refused to receive the rent tendered by Abdul Karim and, therefore, he started depositing the rent in Misc. Rent Case in the name of Dildar. The respondents are the sons of Dildar and they have claimed to be the owners of the property after the death of Dildar. The respondents filed Rent Case No, 3848/80 against Abdul Karim on the ground of reconstruction. The said rent case was contested by Abdul Karim, inter alia, on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In that rent case, ejectment of Abdul Karim was ordered by the Rent Controller against which Abdul Karim filed F.R.A. No, 641/83, which is pending in this Court.
3. In 1985, the respondents filed Rent Case No, 1272/85 against Abdul Karim on the ground of default. In this rent case Abdul Karim again took up the plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The plea that has been taken by Abdul Karim in this rent case in his Written Statement was that he had no knowledge regarding the ownership of the respondents in respect of the premises in question for want of proper statutory notice. Then in his affidavit-in-evidence before the Rent Controller he has taken up the same plea by averring that he had no knowledge regarding the ownership of the respondents for want of proper statutory notice.
4. This Ejectment Application No,1272/85 was allowed by Rent Controller by the impugned order dated 30-11-1986. As observed earlier, this rent appeal was filed by Abdul Karim challenging the ejectment order. During the pendency of the appeal, Abdul Karim died and his legal heirs namely, Mst. Hussan Bani and others have been brought on record as appellants in this appeal.
5. Admittedly neither any rent has been paid by Abdul Karim or the appellants to the respondents nor any rent has been deposited by them with the Rent Controller in the name of the respondents.
The entire defence of Abdul Karim and the appellants depends on statutory notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, having not been served by the respondents upon Abdul Karim or the appellants. It has not been denied by Abdul Karim or by the appellants that Dildar has died and that respondents are sons of Dildar. Admittedly the earlier rent case had been filed in 1980 by the respondents against Dildar, in which an ejectment order had been passed.
Notice A of the earlier ejectment application on Dildar is sufficient notice to him and to appellants of the ownership in the property having devolved upon the respondents as sons and legal representatives of deceased Dildar. In this context reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Azhar Imam Rizvi v. Mst. Salma Khatoon reported in 1985 SCMR 24 relied upon by Mr. H.A. Rahmani, learned counsel for the respondents. In the said decision, Supreme Court was dealing with a similar situation where a plea had been raised on behalf of the tenant that notice under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction. Ordinance 1959 had not been served.
The Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as follows:-- "It is also not correct that after the admission by the petitioner (tenant) that he had received a copy of the ejectment application in 1978 wherein the factum of sale in favour of the respondent had clearly been mentioned, he was entitled to any other formal notice under section 13A. The receipt of the copy of the ejectment application and knowledge gained thereby would constitute due notice and it will have to be treated as substantial compliance of section 13-A of the Ordinance!
6. As observed earlier, the death of Dildar is not denied. It has also not been denied that the respondents are sons of deceased Dildar. Notice of the earlier ejectment application, filed in 1980 on the ground of reconstruction by the respondents, had been served upon Abdul Karim, which constituted due notice to Abdul Karim that Dildar had died and the respondents, his sons, had become owners of the property in question and this was substantial compliance of section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. After such notice, Abdul Karim was required to pay rent to the respondents or to deposit rent in their names. Admittedly this was not done.
7. Mr. Kazim Hasan, learned counsel for the appellants, has relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shazeh Pooya v. Mrs. Mubarak Shah reported in 1988 SCMR 890 and has also taken me through the evidence of the attorney of the respondents. The decision relied upon by Mr. Kazim Hasan does not support the case of the appellant. Mr. Kazim Hasan had also relied upon an answer given by the attorney of the respondent in his cross-examination where he had stated that he did not remember the exact year of the death of Dildar. As it has been admitted on behalf of the appellants that Dildar had died and that respondents are his sons and that notice of an earlier ejectment application, filed in 1980 by the respondents, had been served upon Abdul Karim, the statement of the attorney of the respondent, that he did not remember the exact year in which Dildar died, does not help the appellants. In his affidavit in evidence, S.M. Haider, attorney of the respondents has stated that after the death of Dildar, respondents became owners of the property and then they filed the ejectment application in 1980 against Abdul Karim.
8. I find no merits in this appeal, which is dismissed with costs. The appellants are, however, granted time till 31-12-1990 to vacate the premises.