Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1991 MLD 1088

Mst. NADIRA YUSUF vs Shaikh MUHAMMAD ARSHAD

Citation1991 MLD 1088
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.First Rent Appeal No,259 of 1988
Date1991-02-28
Judge(s)Imam Ali G. Kazi
ResultOrder accordingly

1. ' The premises in question was originally owned by one Muhammad Yousuf who expired on 3-12- 1984 and were let out to respondent Shaikh Muhammad Arshid on payment of rent of Rs,50 per month. The appellant as the daughter of the deceased inherited the said premises alongwith her mother, four brothers and three sisters. She obtained Letters of Administration of the property of her deceased father from this Court and sent A notice to the respondent on 28-6-1987 intimating him the change in ownership of the premises. She had sent the notice by Registered Post with acknowledgement due mentioning the address of the premises in question but it was returned by the postal authorities on the ground that the address was incomplete. Another notice also sent by Registered Post with A.D. To the respondent on his other address of his business was returned as the office was closed. She then filed an application for ejectment on the ground of subletting the premises and having committed default in payment of rent since 1-1-1984.

2. ' Various attempts were made to serve the respondent without any success. He was ultimately served through substituted service by way of publication in a newspaper. Still he did not turn up to defend the case and the Rent Controller directed to proceed against him ex parte.

3. ' Appellant filed an affidavit in ex parte proof of her case before the Rent Controller who dismissed the application on 9-2-1988 on the technical ground that notice sent by the appellant to the respondent giving him intimation of change in ownership of the premises in compliance with provision of law contained in section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was not received/served on him. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.

4. ' Mr. Muhammad Salim Qureshi, Advocate for the appellant in support of this appeal contended that the Rent Controller has passed the order impugned in this appeal by holding that appellant did not comply with the provision of section 18 of the Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Alternatively he contended that notice of the application of ejectment filed in Court itself would amount to intimation of the change in ownership and requirement of that provision shall be taken to have been made. He has referred to cases reported in 1985 SCMR 24 and 1986 SCM R 751.

5. ' The respondent for the purpose of the present appeal was served by publication but has remained absent throughout.

6. ' In case change in ownership of a premises occurs due to sale, gift, inheritance and in any such other mode the new owner is required by section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to send a notice of intimation of such transfer in his/her favour by Registered Post. Section 18, further provides that in case rent is paid within thirty days from the date when the intimation should, in normal course reach the tenant the tenant shall not be deemed to have committed default in payment of rent. It will thus be seen that actual receipt of notice is not an essential requirement of section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Despatch of intimation of change in ownership of rented premises sent to a tenant on his known address by registered post by itself is sufficient compliance of the requirement of section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The appellant in the present case had produced two registered letters sent by registered post to the respondent/tenant intimating him the change of ownership of the premises rented by him. The requirement of the relevant provision of law as discussed above was sufficiently met with and the application filed by the appellant under section 15 of the Ordinance for the ejectment of respondent could not have been rejected on the ground mentioned in it by the Rent Controller.

7. ' The order passed by the Rent Controller on 19-2-1988 for the reasons mentioned above is set aside and the case is remanded to him for proceeding further in accordance with law. As this is an old matter the Rent Controller is directed to take it out of turn and dispose it expeditiously.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch