1. ' I intend to dispose of these five appeals by this common judgment as all the five appeals involve the same issues and pertain to the 4 shops and a tenement in the same building said to be owned by the present appellant.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the present appellant claims to be the landlord of the Plot No, TL-2/50 with building thereon having purchased the same from its evacuee transferee on 1-5-1976 through an agreement of sale which was subsequently regularised through registered sale-deed dated 5- 9-1977. The respondents are said to be the tenants in four of the shops on ground floor and one of the tenement and first floor of the said building at the rate of rent mentioned in each rent case. The appellant served legal notice on the respondents on 8-5-1976 under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 through registered post A.D. and thereafter filed the rent cases for their ejectment. This rent case was, however, dismissed for want of service of the notice. The appellant then also got a site plan sanctioned for re construction of the building from the competent authority. The appellant, therefore, filed the present rent case on the grounds of default and requirement for demolition and re-construction. The respondents filed their respective written statement in each case wherein they admitted having received the notice from the Advocate for the appellant but the same was not replied to. However, the respondents urged that the building belonged to Evacuee Trust Property Board and that they were paying the rent to the Evacuee Trust Board but subsequently they received a notice from one Muhammad Usman, who also claimed to have been transferred the said building by Settlement Authority and to be in possession of final transfer documents. The said Muhammad Usman claimed the rent from the respondents and had also filed a suit in this Court challenging the title of the present appellant. The respondents further claimed that they then moved applications before the Rent Controller and under the orders of the Rent Controller they have been depositing the rent in Court in the miscellaneous rent cases. The respondents also denied the title of the present appellant. On these pleadings of the parties the lower Court framed the issues. First issue pertains to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and maintainability of the rent case while the next issue pertains to requirement of appellant for demolition and re-construction of the building in question and whether such site plan had been sanctioned. The parties led their evidence. Appellant filed affidavit-in-evidence of his father, namely, Lal Muhammad, who has produced photostat copies of various documents. The respondent in each case also filed his affidavit-in-evidence and produced copies of rent receipts issued by Evacuee Trust Property Board and of Nazir in the Miscellaneous Rent Case. He also produced notice issued by Officers of the Evacuee Trust Property Board. The Rent Controller then after hearing the Advocates of the parties was pleased to hold that the present appellant was not the landlord of the premises in dispute as his title was sub judice in Court in the abovesaid civil suit. Consequently the rent case filed by the present appellant was dismissed. Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred these appeals.
3. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq, learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the present appellant has produced registered sale-deed dated 5- 9-1976 (Exh. A/7), mutation in favour of the appellant in property register (Exh. A/8). He has also referred to the copy of the notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (Exh. A/9). He has further referred to the order passed by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board on 27-1-1977 whereby the transfer of the said premises in favour of Shujahuddin and Ibrahim was confirmed. Referring to these documents the learned counsel has submitted that all these documents showed that the present appellant, who has purchased the said premises from transferees Shujahuddin and Ibrahim is the owner of the premises for all purposes and this overwhelming evidence sufficiently goes to prove his case. He has further submitted that as against this the mere fact that one Muhammad Usman has filed a suit challenging the title of the present appellant would not divest him of his rights unless if is conclusively proved otherwise.
4. ' Mr. Khaliq Hamayun, learned counsel for the respondents in all the appeals has submitted that since the suit has been filed, a cloud has been cast over the title of the appellant and thus he cannot be held to be the owner unless he gets his title cleared from the Court in the said suit. I cannot describe to this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. The registered sale- deed stands in favour of the present appellant. The order of the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board shows that the property stood transferred to the appellant. Also the mutation in the property register in favour of the appellant goes to show that he is the owner of the said property. It is established law that the entry in property record is a very strong presumptive piece of evidence of ownership in favour of the person in whose name such entry stands unless proved otherwise. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that on the face of the record the present appellant is the owner of the said premises and the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to hold otherwise. This conclusion would, of course, be subject to the ultimate decision which may be taken in Civil Suit No,22/1981 filed by Muhammad Usman which is pending in this Court. A reference may be made to the case of Kassim and another v. S. Rahim Shah (1990 SCM R 647). The Honourable Supreme Court in this case has observed: "All this evidence, prima facie, supports the plea of the respondent that he had acquired the right of the ownership in the property through sale-deed. Until the sale-deed is cancelled and is out of the field, the respondent can claim to have stepped into the shoes of the previous owner, entitled to recover rent from the tenants of the building which was the subject-matter of the sale."
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Sadiq, learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the written statement filed by the respondents in which they have admitted to have received the notice. They have also admitted that they were the tenants originally of the Evacuee Trust Property Board to whom they paid the rent and subsequently they started depositing the rent in Court. In cross- examination it has been admitted by the respondents that they were paying rent to the said Board but subsequently it had refused to accept the rent from them. It is obvious that it was for these reasons that they started depositing the rent in Court.
6. ' In view of the above discussion it is established that the appellant is the owner of the said building and is entitled to receive the rent from the tenants after having them served with the notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, unless proved otherwise. Accordingly, I allow these appeals, set aside the orders of the Rent Controller and remand the cases to the same Court with the direction to give findings on other issues as well.
7. ' However, there will be no order as to costs.