IMAM ALI G.KAZI, J:- This is a First Rent appeal filed by the two appellants who claim to be the landlords of Flat No.9, Ramji Bhagwan Building, Jauhar Street, Choona Bazar Karachi, against the order passed by the I Senior Civil Judge & Rent Controller, Karachi (South), on 1-11-1987 in Rent Case No.844/87 filed by them to evict their tenant, respondent Mohammad Siddiq. The Rent Controller, by such order, dismissed the application filed by the appellants for ejectment of their tenant/respondent on the short ground that intimation regarding change in ownership of the premises in question was not duly communicated to the respondent. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are briefly stated as follows:-
1. That one Abdul Asim Khan was the owner of Flat No.9, Ramji Bhagwan Building, Jauhar Street, Choona-Bazar, Karachi, who had It out the said premises to respondent Mohammad Siddiq on payment of rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per month. Abdul Asim died on 4-8-1985 leaving behind Mst.
Kulsum Begum, his widow, the appellant No. 1; Mrs. Khurshid Farman Ali his daughter, the appellant No.2; Sajida Shaikh, Zubeda Shaikh, Abdul Muqtadir Khan and Abdul Matin Khan, as his legal heirs.
All of them inherited the flat in question on his death and thus became the owners thereof. They, through their advocate intimated the respondent about the change in ownership and called upon him to pay rent to them by notice dated 25-10-86. The notice sent by registered post with acknowledgment due through their advocate was, however, not delivered to the respondent and returned to the appellants' advocate.
2. The two appellants out of the legal heirs filed an application under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, on 16-5-1987 seeking ejectment of the respondent from the premises in question on the ground of default in payment of rent since December, 1983, and subletting it. The respondent was duly served. He also put his appearance through an advocate who sought time to i.e the written statement but neither written statement nor any objections were filed on behalf of the respondent. The Rent Controller therefore ordered to proceed ex-parte against the respondent.
The Rent Controller, on examination of the affidavit filed in ex-parte proof filed on behalf of the appellants, came to the conclusion that the notice dated 25-10-1986 issued to the respondent intimating him of the change in ownership of property due to the death of the previous owner and calling upon him to pay the rent to the new owners was rot served on him. According to him, as the notice was not served upon the respondent provision of section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was not complied with and therefore no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. He therefore on such sole ground dismissed the application. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.
3. Mr. Munawwar Ghani, advocate appearing for appellants, contended that non-service of notice in terms of section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, sent by registered post acknowledgement due by itself will not be sufficient to hold that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. He has placed reliance on the cases reported in 1985 SCM R 24 and 1986 SCM R 751 in support of his such contention.
4. Respondent Mohammad Siddiq and his advocate Muzaffar Hussain have preferred to remain absent today.
5. In order to appreciate the contention raised by Mr. Munawwar Ghani, advocate for the appellants, it is necessary to examine the provision contained in section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which is reproduced below:- "18. Change in ownership. Where the ownership of a premises, in possession of the tenant has been transferred by sale, gift, inheritance or by such other mode, the new owner shall send an intimation of such transfer in writing by registered post, to the tenant and the tenant shall not be deemed to have defaulted in payment of the rent for the purpose of clan (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 15, if the rent due is paid within thirty days from the date when the intimation should, in normal course, have reached the tenant."
6. A plain reading of this provision clearly indicates that mere despatch of a notice intimating the change in ownership of a premises in writing by registered post to the tenant will be sufficient compliance of the said provision. It has been expressly provided in the section itself that if the rent due is paid within thirty days from the date when the intimation should have in normal course reached the tenant no default in payment of rent shall be deemed to have been committed by the tenant. This provision clearly contemplates receipt of the notice sent by registered post in normal course and expected time of receipt thereof is treated tp be the starting point of period of thirty days allowed for payment of rent. In case of change in ownership of the rented premises is sent by the new owners in writing by registered post it will be considered to be sufficient compliance of that provision of law even though such intimation is actually not received by the tenant. Even otherwise the filing of an ejectment application will be treated as due compliance of section 18 of the Ordinance. Non-receipt of intimation of change in ownership of the rented premises by the tenant would not by itself enable a Rent Controller to hold that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. The view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the two cases referred to above is to the above effect which I respectfully follow.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the order impugned in this appeal is set aside and the appeal is allowed with, a direction that the Rent Controller shall now proceed afresh after hearing the parties and recording of evidence and decide the case on merits. The Rent Controller had, during the proceedings, passed an order to proceed ex-parte against the tenant under section 19(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance; 1979. This order is also set aside to afford another chance to the tenant to i.e written statement if he so chooses and lead evidence in support of his case.