1. ' This First Rent Appeal has been filed by the tenant Islamuddin against the landlord Anjuman-e- Falah Bahbood, Chunrigran, Hyderabad (hereinafter to be called as the Anjuman"), as Rent Controller has ordered ejectment of the tenant on the application of the landlord in respect of a shop.
2. ' The facts in nutshell arc that a shop on Plot No, 2/87 of C.S. No, 2487 Ward 'A', Sarfraz Colony, Hyderabad belonged to one Moinuddin. The appellant Islamuddin, who has died during the pendency of these proceedings and is represented by his L.Rs, shown in the amended title of this Appeal, was the tenant of Moinuddin and was paying him the rent @ Rs, 150 per month. Moinuddin had gifted the shop to the landlord Anjuman. Thereafter, the mutation in the City Survey Record was effected in the name of the Ajuman. A notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was served on the tenant Islamuddin. The tenant was called upon to pay the rent to the Anjuman, the new landlord and at the same time he was asked to vacate the premises as the same were required for the personal use of the landlord. This notice was issued on 9-8-1985 and the tenant/appellant Islamuddin replied to this notice on 20-8-1985 stating that he did not know about the gift made by Moinuddin in favour of the Anjuman, therefore, he wanted a copy of the mutation of the record of rights. He also repudiated the facts that the new landlord required the shop in dispute for his personal use. Thereafter, an application under section 15 of the S.R.P.O. Was filed by the Anjuman on the ground of default and personal use. The tenant/appellant Islamuddin filed his written statement, in which he denied the factum of gift of the shop in dispute by Moinuddin in favour of the landlord and insisted that the proof of the title of the new landlord in shape of the mutation of the record was not supplied to him. He denied the default in payment of the rent as according to him the rent was being paid by him to the previous owner Moinuddin, which was refused by Moinuddin from the month of July, 1985. He also stated that on refusal by Moinuddin he again sent him a money-order, which was also refused. He refused to pay the rent to the new landlord and in his written statement before the Rent Controller he refused to recognize him as landlord. The ground of personal use was also refused. The learned Rent Controller after recording evidence of both the parties framed the points for determination as under:--
(1) Whether there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?
(2) Whether the applicant has committed wilful default in payment of rent since 1985?
(3) Whether the landlord requires the shop for his personal bona fide use?
3. ' The learned Rent Controller, after discussing the evidence of the parties in detail, has come to the conclusion that the tenant is a wilful defaulter and that the landlord wants to use the shop in dispute for the teaching of the Holy Qur'an to the children of the locality and has ordered the ejectment of the tenant by the order dated 4-4-1987. While challenging this order Mr. Amanullah Qureshi, Advocate for the appellant/tenant, insisted that since Moinuddin, the previous owner, had refused to accept the rent from him, he Was not a defaulter. He also insisted that the purpose of imparting the Qur'anic education to the children of community by the applicant did net amount to his personal use. I do not find any force in the contention of the /learned counsel for the appellant.
4. The tenant has to find out the landlord and pay him the rent. In this case, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant did not either pay the rent to the landlord or deposit it in the Court for a period of more 2 years commencing from July, 1985. Instead, learned counsel for the appellant stated that after refusal of money-order by the previous owner Moinuddin he did not pay any rent to anybody till the year 1987 when he was required to deposit the rent in Court from October, 1987. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the rent after October, A 1987 is being deposited in the Court. There is no explanation for default on the part of the tenant for a period of about 2 years. The contention of counsel for the appellant that the copy of the mutation was not supplied to the tenant is absolutely misconceived. The cases earlier decided by the superior Courts have held that service of a notice by a new landlord about the change of ownership was enough, and the new owner would not be required to supply the tenant with the copy of mutation of transfer documents. I am supported in this view by the case of Syed Hamid Hussain v. Mst. Humera Ghayas, reported in 1986 CLC 1873. Even otherwise the filing of the rent application was enough, requiring the tenant to pay the rent to the new landlord. But in this case, the tenant has neglected to pay the rent even after filing of the rent application. In this respect reliance is placed on the case of Samina Begum v. Muhammad Ali, reported in 1991 M LD 1084. Yet in another case of Khalilur Rehman v. The Controller of Post Offices, General Post Offices, Karachi, decided by my learned brother Mr. Justice Mamoon Kazi, reported in 1987 CLC 333, it has been held that the transferee is not bound to satisfy the tenant about his title by producing any document of authority and the objection of the tenant that without first establishing legal title to the premises by producing before the tenant document of authority, transferee could not act as landlord, was ruled out by the High Court in appellate jurisdiction. As regards, the question of personal use, the landlord being an Anjuman for the welfare of its community has every right to use it for imparting Qur'anic education to the children of the community. The use of the shop by the children of the community under the management of the Anjuman amounts to personal use of the Anjuman /landlord. Therefore, I do not find anything wrong with the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller. Consequently, this F.R.A. Is dismissed. However, the appellant is allowed to vacate the premises within 4 months from the date of this order.