1. This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, hereinafter to be referred as the Ordinance, is directed against order, dated 13-7-1992 passed by IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (Central), Karachi in Rent Case No.245/89, directing appellant's eviction from house constructed on Plot No. 589-A, Block-10, Liaquatabad, Karachi.
2. The facts of the case in brief given by the respondent in his application under section 15 of the Ordinance are, that the Property bearing No. 589-A, Block-10, Liaquatabad, Karachi Central, consisting of two portions was purchased by him from the previous owner and appellant occupied a portion thereof at monthly rent of Rs.85. On acquiring ownership of the premises, respondent called upon the appellant to vacate the portion in his possession which respondent purchased for his own need. Instead of vacating the premises the appellant started harassing the respondent and disconnected the electric connection to the adjoining portion which was in occupation of another tenant who had vacated the same. It was also stated that a proper notice of intimation of change of ownership was also given to the appellant who did not pay rent at the rate at which he was paying to the previous owner. It was also stated that rent was not paid by appellant. From 1-6- 1988. The eviction of appellant way, sought on the grounds of default and bona fide personal requirement. Appellant filed written-statement and pleaded that he was tenant of one Rasheed Ahmad Shaikh and had paid rent to him regularly at the rate of Rs.75 per month till March 1989, that Rasheed Ahmad Shaikh had promised to sell the premises to him and because of such promise, appellant had invested more than Rs.40,000 over the portion in his occupation, that the notice of intimation was manipulated one, issued as a result of complicity between previous owner Rasheed Ahmad Shaikh and the respondent, and that default and bona fide personal requirement was maliciously pleaded.
3. Respondent filed his affidavit-in-evidence and produced notice, dated 16-2-1989 purporting to be under section 18 of the Ordinance, the postal receipt as well as acknowledgement receipt, another notice, dated 26th February, 1989, sent by previous owner Rasheed Ahmad Shaikh intimating appellant of change of ownership and calling upon him to pay all arrears of rent to respondent and a conveyance deed. Affidavit-in-evidence of the previous owner Rasheed Ahmad Shaikh was also filed and he produced notice, dated 16-2-1989 which he sent to appellant and the postal and A.D. Receipts. Appellant filed his affidavit-in-evidence and produced an agreement of sale purportedly executed. By the previous owner in favour of one Riaz Ahmad Vohra, a receipt of Rs.1,10,000 executed by Rasheed Ahmad Shaikh and some money order coupons. Appellant also filed two more affidavits-in-evidence of Nasiruddin and Waheed Ahmad. The parties were cross- examined by their respective counsel. The learned Rent Controller framed the following points for determination:---
(1) Whether the application is competent to maintain the ejectment application in hand?
(2) Whether the opponent committed any default in payment of rent and thus made himself liable to ejectment?
(3) Whether the applicant requires the rented premises for his personal bona fide use, and therefore, the opponent is liable to- ejectment as sought for?
(4) What the order be?
4. On assessm ent of evidence, the learned Rent Controller held that the application was competent, the issue of default was not pressed, the issue of bona fide personal requirement of respondent was answered in affirmative and in the result, allowed the ejectment application.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence. The rent application was filed by the respondent on 26-3-1989 when he was not the owner/landlord of the premises.
6. The conveyance deed in his favour is dated 5-12-1989. Before filing the rent case he sent an intimation notice purporting to be under section 18 of the Ordinance on 16-2-1989. A similar notice was addressed to appellant by the previous owner on 26-2-1989 but admittedly by either 16-2- 1989 or 26-2-1989, appellant was not a tenant of the respondent as nothing was on record that the previous owner had conveyed the, property to, respondent. It is not the case of respondent that he was authorised by the previous owner to collect rent from the appellant. The appellant has produced a sale agreement executed by the previous owner Rasheed Ahmad Shaikh m favour of one Riaz Ahmad Vohra, dated 13-11-1958 and had received a sum of Rs.1,10,000 from said Riaz Ahmad. Even Riaz Ahmad was proclaiming to be the owner/landlord by virtue of a sale agreement in his favour and was demanding rent from appellant.
7. Section 18 of the Ordinance reads as under:-- "18.Change in ownership.---Where the ownership of a premises in possession of the tenant has been transferred by sale, gift, inheritance or by such other mode, the new owner shall send an intimation of such transfer in writing by registered post to the tenant and the tenant shall not be deemed to have defaulted in payment of the rent for the purpose of clause (ii) of subsection (2) of section 15, if the rent due is paid within thirty days from the date when the intimations should, in normal course, have reached the tenant."
8. Since the respondent was not the owner of the disputed premises on 16-2-1989, when he sent an intimation notice to the appellant, he could not have either claimed rent from appellant nor could he file ejectment application. The notice by the previous owner dated 26-2-1989 would also be irrelevant as the conveyance deed of the property was not executed even till this date. The rent case which was filed on 26-3-1989 by the respondent was incompetent in law as the respondent had no locus standi to file the application nor had he any cause of action for filing the rent case.
9. The respondent has based his case on the plea that he had made full payment to the previous owner in February 1988 and he was thus a landlord which plea is devoid of any force because nothing is brought on record to show that he had acquired ownership of the property in November 1988. The finding of the learned Rent Controller on Issue No.1. Cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. No finding on Issue No.2 is required to be given as admittedly there was no default nor the said issue was pressed by respondent. Because of the finding on Issue No.1 which is set aside, the finding on Issue No.3 is also set aside as it was redundant to have decided this issue if the learned Rent Controller had rightly decided Issue No.1.
10. As a result of the above discussion the appeal succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the ejectment case filed by the respondent is dismissed with no orders as to costs. It shall, however, be open to the respondent to file fresh case after making full compliance of the provision of section 18 of the Ordinance. These are the reasons for the short order dated 14-11-1993.