1. ' This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is directed against the order dated 31-3-1990, passed by learned IV, Rent Controller, Karachi, South (MRs, Fahmeeda Qadeer) whereby, she directed the appellants to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent within 30 days from the date of said order. The facts relevant for decision of this appeal are as follows:-- ' Respondent Syed Latifuddin Fakhri on 1-11-1966 had filed eviction application against the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants namely, Mushtaq Ali, on the ground of default in payment of rent. Said Mushtaq Ali, during pendency of the matter, had expired on 7-8-1988 and after his death the present appellants were brought on record as his legal heiRs, The cage of respondent is that deceased Mushtaq Ali was a statutory tenant in respect of Flat No,29, Block No,5, First Floor, Raja Mansion, Yaqoob Khan Road, Iddgah, Karachi, hareinafter called the premises, and was liable to pay rent to him (respondent) on the basis of assessment carried out by the Karachi Municipal Corporation. It is alleged that the premises in question, alongwith two other flats, was transferred to respondent in lieu of his claim by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Karachi, through Mr. M.M.K.A. Zai, attorney w,e,f, 6-11-1959. After transfer, a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, intimating the transfer of the premises and demanding rent on the basis of assessment carried out by the Karachi Municipal Corporation, was served upon the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants through registered post and acknowledgement due, but he (deceased Mushtaq) failed to pay or tender rent of the premises to the respondent or to his attorney. Thereafter, a fresh notice under said section, dated 21-6-1966, was served upon the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants but he again failed to pay any rent. According to respondents, a sum of Rs,4,527 on account of rent from 6-11-1959 to 31- 10-1966 at the rate of Rs,54 P.M., was outstanding against him. The predecessor-in-interest of appellants admitted to have received notice dated 21-6-1966 and maintained that since the copy of title deed of the premises in question was not sent to him by the respondent as such there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Also, he had taken a plea that demand of rent at the rate of Rs,54 P.M. Was imaginary.
2. ' The then learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 6-5-1968, held that respondent was the landlord and the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was the tenant in respect of the premises and the latter was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs,12 p.m. This order was challenged before the then IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi, who, by order dated 17-2-1969, allowed the appeal and set aside the said order of learned Rent Controller. The matter was taken up to the High Court and by order 10-10-1974 the judgment of Additional District Judge was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Controller for deternlination of the issue of ownership of the respondent. On 22-12-1976, the then learned Rent Controller struck off the defence of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants and directed him to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within one month from the date of said order. Appeal against this order was heard by the then Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi who, by order dated 15-8-1977, set aside the said order.' The aforesaid order of learned Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi was challenged before High Court and appeal against said order was dismissed, as per order dated 20-5-1982. In this order, a learned Single Judge of this Court had directed the Rent Controller to decide the case afresh in the light of the order passed by High Court, on 10-10-1974, which is as follows:-- "That the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Karachi may be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Controller for determination of the issue of ownership of appellant Syed Latifuddin Fakhri. The Controller shall permit the parties to lead evidence on the issue in regard to the transfer of the property in dispute to the appellant by the Settlement Department. The respondent Mushtaq Ali shall deposit and shall continue to deposit rent at the rate of Rs,12 per month, as ordered by the Controller under section 13 (6) of the Ordinance on 4-7-1968. Such rent as may be deposited will be paid to appellant Syed Latifuddin Fakhri on furnishing security."
3. ' In compliance of above direction, learned Rent Controller proceeded with the matter and the respondent examined himself and his witnesses namely, Imdad All from Excise and Taxation Department, and Israrul Haq Incharge of Record Settlement Department. The appellants examined Serfraz All (appellant No,3).
4. ' The case of respondent is that he is the owner of the premises on the basis of P.T.O. Issued by the Settlement Department in favour of Mr. M.M.KA. Zai and 96 associates, including the respondent on the basis of agreement of association and its schedule, containing the names of 96 Associates out of whose compensation books the agreed negotiated price, relating to R.C. 8/7/1A to 8/7/1D, bearing Custodian No,IV-A-239-292, was paid. The respondent has claimed that he is one of those associate persons who had signed the agreement of association and whose compensation book was utilised in the payment of the price of said property. It is mentioned that "Raja Mansion" consisted of 5 units as under:-- "(1) KMC Plot No, RC. 8/7/1-A (Block No,2)
(2) KMC Plot No, RC.8/7/1-B (Block No, 3)
(3) KMC Plot No, RC. 8/7/1-C (Block No, 4)
(4) KMC Plot No,RC. 8/7/1-D (Block No,5)
(5) KMC Plot No, RC. 8/7/2/1 (Block No,1)"
5. ' Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of title of the building known as 'RAJA MANSION' in the case reported in 1982 SCMR 788, Mr. M.M.KA. Zai v. Settlement Commissioner, Karachi and another observed as follows:-- "It thus becomes clear that the negotiations concerned the purchase of only four units of the property, and the fifth unit having a separate rental value of Rs,3,90,240 did not form part of the transaction. On this view of the matter, we have no doubt whatsoever that the property sold to the petitioner comprised only four units, bearing Property Nos, R.C.8/7/1-A to 1-D, and that the fifth unit bearing Municipal Property No,R.C.8/7/2/1/1, comprising 50 tenements, was not sold to the petitioner. He had, therefore no right to obtain a P.T.O. In respect of this unit. The learned Settlement Commissioner acted rightly in directing that it should be deleted from the P.T.O."
6. ' Thus, it is evident that units Nos,1 to 4 mentioned earlier were transferred to the persons, whose names are mentioned in the agreement of association and Unit No,5 K.M.C. Plot No,RC. 8/7/2/1 (Block No,1) was not transferred to Mr. M.M.KA. Zai and otheRs, It also stands proved that the Block No,5, was transferred to 96 Associates, including the respondent. The copy of agreement of association is on record and at Serial Number 61 the name of respondent appeaRs, From this it is clear that premises in question is the property of the respondent. In fact, the appellants have also impliedly admitted the factum of transfer of the premises in favour of the respondent and this is evident from their plea that the copy of the title deed was not supplied to them.
7. ' After deciding the issue that the respondent is the owner of the premises the only point which requires consideration is that whether the predecessor-in-interest of appellants had committed default in payment of rent. It is an admitted position that notice, as required under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, was served upon the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. The grievance of the appellants is that, after transfer of said premises, copy of title document was not sent to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. This objection has specifically been taken in the Written Reply. Once the notice was served upon the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants it was his duty to pay the rent. On the ground of alleged not supplying the copy of title-deed, he could not withhold the rent. On this point reference can be made to the case reported in PLD 1976 Karachi page No,169 Shaikh Ghous Bux (through Legal Heirs) v. K.S. Muhammad Abdul Naeem. Since, admittedly after the receipt of notice rent was not paid by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants therefore the conclusion would be that he had committed default in payment of rent. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that P.T.D. (Permanent Transfer Deed) has not yet been issued in favour of the transferees, as such, they including the respondent, could not validly serve the notice under section 30 of the Act, 1958.
8. In support of this contention he cited PLD 1971 Lahore 1007 Attaul Haq and 2 others v. H. Malik Electric Co. In this case it has been held that purchaser of big mansion is required to pay price of building within specified time in lump sum and not in instalments and he can not be given possession until full price is paid, and nor can Provisional Transfer Order be issued until full price and settlement fees are paid. In the instant case, full price has been paid and Provisional Transfer Order has been issued. It is on record at page No,123 of the Lower Court's file. So this plea has got no force.
9. ' Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that the record of Custodian Department was not properly maintained and, as such, could not to relied upon for the purpose of transfer of the said building in favour of the respondent and otheRs, The contention prima facie, has got no force. In rent proceedings, this objection cannot be taken. Besides, the issue of title of the property (RAJA MANSION) has already been decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mr. M.M.KA. Zai mentioned earlier. On this point, the evidence of Israrul Haq is also very relevant. He has specifically deposed that the name of respondent is on record at Serial Number 61 and the signatures of Mr. M.M.KA. Zai and associates are available in the agreement of association, which was approved by.
10. The Settlement Department. Thus, there is no doubt that the premises in question belongs to the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellants next argued that there is a doubt about the title of the respondent, and, under such circumstances, the Rent Controller or Appellate Court cannot pass order for eviction. On this point, reliance is placed on the case reported in 1983 SCMR 1064 Rehmat Ullah v. All Muhammad and another. Suffice it to say that principle laid down in the above reported case is not at all attracted to the circumstances of this case. In the instant case, the title of the respondent is absolutely clear.
11. ' In consequence, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellants are directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent within 4 months from now.