1. ' This appeal under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter called the Ordinance is directed against the order dated 17-11-1991 passed by learned VIIIth Rent Controller, Karachi, South in Rent Case No,845/89, whereby the eviction application was allowed and the appellant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent within a month from the date of said order. The facts relevant for decision of this appeal are as follows:- ' Respondent Muhammad Ismail filed eviction application against appellant Mst. Momin Bai on the ground of default in payment of rent. The case of the respondent is that he is the owner of plot and construction thereon, bearing NoAK-24-9-S-15/1 New Kumharwara, Lyari Quarters, Karachi, which he had purchased on 6-12-1977 from previous owner namely, Abdul Sattar. It is alleged, thereafter, said plot was leased out to him by Karachi Metropolitan Corporation through registered deed bearing No,833 dated 27-3-1988. The respondent has claimed that the appellant is his tenant in respect of a portion of said plot i,e, House No,44, hereinafter called the premises, at a monthly rent of Rs,12 payable after the expiry of every English Calendar month. It is alleged that the respondent informed the appellant of his having purchased the said plot from the previous owner and asked her to pay him the rent at the aforesaid rate and the latter, instead of paying the rent, had filed the suit bearing No,355/87 for grant of lease in her favour for the premises in question. The respondent was impleaded as a party, and the suit was dismissed and so also the appeal, which was preferred by the appellant. According to respondent, on 20-4-1939 he sent a notice to the appellant calling her to pay the arrears of rent, but said notice was returned back with the endorsement "refused".
2. The respondent has maintained that he requires the premises for his, as well as his son's bona fide use. The respondent stated that rent prior to 19-4-1986 has become time-barred, but he is entitled to rent from said date onwards. The appellant in her written reply resisted the claim of the respondent and stated that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. She has also taken a plea that the respondent has obtained the lease in his favour by way of misrepresentation and fraud. She mentioned that one Abdul Sattar falsely pretended that he was the owner of said land and rent be paid to him.
3. ' 'The respondent and the appellant filed their affidavits-in-evidence and were cross-examined.
4. From the pleading of the parties, learned Rent Controller had settled the following issues:--- "(1) Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the Applicant and the Opponent?
(2) What should the order be?"
5. ' On assessm ent of the evidence brought on record, learned Rent Constroller decided the issue No,1 in affirmative and consequently allowed the eviction application, which order has been impugned in this appeal. Neither any issue was framed on this point of personal bona fide use and nor any, such finding was recorded. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that learned Rent Controller has misread and misappreciated the evidence available on record, and, as such, wrongly reached the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Also, it has been argued that it is not at all established that the respondent is the owner of the premises.
6. Learned counsel submitted that, under the circumstances, learned Rent Controller should have rejected the eviction application. In support of his contentions, he cited (1) 1987 CLC 148 M/s. Mehran Shoes v. Muhammad Ismail and 3 others, (2) 1987 CLC 1134 Beejal Mal v. Punjai (3) 1989 CLC 252 Haji Faqeer Muhammad v. Hazratullah. In M/s. Mehran Shoes case it was held that Rent Controller could decide question of relationship of landlord and tenant on admitted facts only and when such relationship was not established, the Rent Controller should have avoided assuming jurisdiction to investigate and decide the complicated issues. In Beejal Mal's case it was held that the Rent Controller in matter of determining ownership could not go beyond transfer order of Settlement Authorities, and when there is a dispute about ownership of the premises Rent Controller would have no jurisdiction in the matter. In Haji Faqeer Muhammad's case which also dealt with the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it was held that such relationship could be created only either by some oral or written agreement or by statute.
7. ' Above contentions have got no force. It is observed that none of the cases cited above is applicable to the circumstances of this case. The appellant, in her cross-examination, clearly admitted that premises in question was of Abdul Sattar and she was paying him rent at the rate of Rs,12 p.m. It is a proven fact that the respondent had purchased the premises from Abdul Sattar and thereafter, lease was granted in his favour by K.M.C. The appellant, in her Written reply has admitted that presently the premises stands leased out in favour of the respondent, but maintained that she "reserves her right to take appropriate action in this behalf'. The appellant had filed the suit to establish her title over the premises, which, admittedly was dismissed and so also the appeal. Before learned District Judge, South, in said Civil Appeal, the appellant had claimed, as appears from the judgment dated 13-12-1988, that she was in possession of a portion of K.M.C. Land bearing No,AK-24-9-S-15/1 (House No,44).The respondent, in eviction application, has also given the same number, describing it as House No,44. From this, it is not difficult to conclude that the appellant is in possession of the premises, which is the property of the respondent. Under these circumstances the finding of learned Rent Controller that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, is perfectly correct and no exception can be taken to it.
8. ' Learned counsel for the appellant cited PLD 1986 Karachi 74 Khwaja Ammer Hussain v.
9. Muhammad Shabbiruddin Khan to contend that the respondent had purchased the premises through Sale Agreement, dated 6th December, 1977, which was not registered, as such, in view of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, the said transaction was illegal ab initio in the eye of law.
10. Learned counsel submitted that sale of property of a value of Rs,100 upward could be made only by registered instrument, which was not done in this case. In the instant case, the main document is the lease-deed, which is a valid document. Even if aforesaid Sale Agreement is not taken into consideration, yet, the lease-deed is enough to hold that the respondent is owner of the premises.
11. So, this contention is also without any substance.
12. ' Next learned counsel for the appellant argued that, notice, under section 18 of the Ordinance, regarding change of the ownership, was not served upon the appellant and on this ground alone the eviction application was liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel also submitted that, in absence of service of said notice, it cannot be said that appellant had committed default in payment of rent. The respondent, in his cross-examination, on this point, stated that appellant had refused to receive the notice from postman. He (respondent) produced envelope alongwith A/D receipt at ExhsA-2 and A-3. On record, however, said envelope and A/D are not available. In absence of said envelope and A/D, it cannot be said that they were actually sent to the appellant, as now is alleged. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq, learned counsel for the respondent, when confronted with such situation, submitted that even receipt of eviction application would constitute a valid notice within the meaning of section 18 of the Ordinance. On this point, he cited (1) 1985 SCMR 24, Syed Azhar Imam v. Mst. Salma Khatoon, (2) 1986 SCMR 751 Major (Retd.) Muhammad Yousaf v. Mehraj- ud-Din and others. In the case of Syed Azhar Imam Rizvi it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that receipt of copy of ejectment application and knowledge gained thereby would constitute a valid notice and same will have to be treated as substantial compliance of section 13- A of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, which for all practical purposes is like section 18 of the Ordinance. In Major (Retd.) Muhammad Yousaf s case Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, if a notice, under section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, was not served that would not amount to absence of relationship of landlord and tenant, and if rent was not paid even after institution of application for eviction, which was treated, as notice under section 13-A, the tenant was liable to eviction. Coming back to the facts of this case it is noted that the appellant has clearly admitted that she did not pay any rent to the respondent even after the institution of eviction application for the reason that she never recognised him as the landlord of the premises.
13. Relying upon the principle laid down in the above-quoted cases, I hold that it is proved that the appellant had committed default in payment of rent. The order of eviction is correct and according to law.
14. ' In consequence, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant, however, is given four months time from now for handing over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent.