1. I intend to dispose of these appeals, filed under section 21(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance"), through this common Judgment, as the facts, circumstances and case-law as well the landlord of the demised premises is the same.
2. Brief facts of F.R.A. No,378 of 1991 are as under:-- Respondents/applicants Ahmed, Yousuf and Mst. Kulsum Bai filed Rent Case No,1181 of 1990 claiming to be owners and landlord/landlady of the building constructed on Plot No,3270 (Excise and Taxation No,AK 20-IS-33/A) situated at Singoo Lane, Lyari Quarters, Karachi. Whereas the appellant Mst. Halimabai is the tenant in respect of one shop of the building at the monthly rent of Rs,600. According to the rent application the opponent did not pay the rent to the respondents owners for a period commencing from 13-8-1986 and committed default in payment of rent and thus rendered herself to be evicted from the demised premises. The respondents/landlords after purchase of the property from its erstwhile owners on 1-10-1988 sent a notice through their Advocate to the appellant requiring her to pay rent to the landlord attorney and Rent Collector but the appellant/opponent refused to accept the notice. According to the respondents/landlord the appellant committed wilful default in payment of rent and sough eviction of the appellant from the demised premises. The appellant was served and submitted written-statement. in para. 1 of the written-statement the appellant/opponent stated as follows: "That para. 1 of the application is not denied as regards the ownership of the applicants. The opponent, however, denies that the agreed rent is Rs,600 (Rupees Seventy Five only) per month which the opponent was paying to previous landlord."
3. The appellant denied that she has committed default in payment of rent. According to her she deposited the rent in Rent Miscellaneous No,1446 of 1987 in the name of previous landlords as well as the present landlords (applicants). The previous landlord did not come to collect the rent as such the appellant tendered the rent by money-order which was refused, she contacted the previous landlord who told her that they have sold out the property to someone. The appellant/opponent further submitted in her written-statement as under: "The opponent made personal inquiries and came to know the purchase and were applicants. The opponent did not get any written intimation from the applicants as such the opponent deposited the rent in name of the applicants as well as the previous landlord in Rent Miscellaneous Application No,1446 of 1987."
4. According to the written-statement the opponent, however, received the notice of this case on 3- 9-1989 and started depositing rent in the name of the applicants/respondents in Rent Miscellaneous No,1275 of 1989 at agreed rate of rent of Rs,75 per month. The appellant, thus, has not committed default in payment of rent. The appellant/opponent has further denied the receipt of the notice from the respondents/landlords. Before the learned Rent Controller on behalf of respondents/landlords Muhammad lshaq son of Haji Ibrahim, gent Controller/Attorney of the respondents/landlords filed affidavit-in-evidence. He also produced General Power of Attorney as Annexure 'A' and further stated that respondents/applicants are the owners and landlords of the demised premises and that the appellant/opponent is the tenant in respect of the shop and also produced photostat copies or (1) List of Opponents in Property No,3270 (Excise and Taxation No,AK 20-IS-33/A) signed and delivered by the owners (2) Registered Deed of Lease in favour of the respondents in respondents of Plot No,3270 as Annexures ' A/1 to A/2'. According to the Attorney the respondents/landlords after purchase of the property from its erstwhile owners, on 4-10-1988 had sent notice through their advocate dated 1-10-1988 requiring the appellant/opponent to pay the rent to them but the notice was returned undelivered with the report of the postal authorities dated 18-10-1988. He also produced photostat copy of notice, postal Registration Receipt, undelivered envelop and postal acknowledgement receipt as Annexures A/3 to A/6 respectively. The notice dated 1-10-1988 was despatched on 6-11-1988 with endorsement dated 2-11-1988, to the opponent through registered post A.D. but the appellant/opponent refused to accept the said notice. The Attorney of the respondents was examined by the learned counsel for the appellant/opponent.
5. Affidavit-in-evidence of Mst. Halima Bai the appellant/opponent was filed, in which she has stated as follows:-- "That I made personal inquiries and came to know that the purchasers were applicants. I did not get any written information from the applicants as such I deposited the rent in Court in name of applicants as well as the previous owners in Rent Miscellaneous No, 1446 of 1987."
6. She also filed six original rent deposit receipts of deposit of rent in Rent Miscellaneous No, 1275 of 1989 as Annexures A to H and four rent deposit receipts of rent in Rent Miscellaneous No, 1446 of 1987 as Annexures G to J. Appellant/opponent was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords. In cross-examination she has stated as follows: "Again vol. says that one Advocate had sent me a notice but I had refused to receive it. It is incorrect that the rate of rent of the present shop is Rs,600 but Rs,75. p.m."
7. After recording of evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Rent Controller allowed the application of the respondents and directed the appellant/opponent to put the respondents/landlord in vacant possession within one month vide Judgment dated 23-5-1991.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment, hence the present appeal.
9. Brief facts of F.R.A. No,281 of 1992 are as follows: Respondents/applicants filed Rent Case No,1179 of 1989 against the appellant/opponent before the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller No,VII South, Karachi, stating therein that they are the owners of the building constructed on plot of land No,3270, Excise and Taxation No,AK-20-IS-33A, situated at Singho Lane, Lyari Quarters and opponent/appellant is a tenant in respect of one shop in the said building at monthly rent of Rs,600 p.m. and appeallant/opponent did not pay rent to the respondents/landlords for the period commencing from 13-8-1998 as such the appellant/opponent committed default in payment of rent and, thus, rendered himself to be evicted from the case premises. The respondents/landlord after purchase or the property from its erstwhile owners had on 6-12-1988 sent through their Advocate a notice dated 1-10-1988, endorsement dated 2-11-1988 and despatched on 6-11-1988 to the appellant/opponent requiring the appellant/opponent to pay rent to the respondents/landlord Attorney/Rent Controller but the appellant/opponent refused to accept the said notice. According to the rent application the appellant deliberately committed wilful default in payment of rent as such the respondents/landlords prayed the learned Rent Controller for eviction of the appellant/opponent may be ordered. After filing of the application, the appellant/opponent submitted written- statement as tenant, stating therein, that the application is not maintainable for want of privity of contract as landlord and tenant between the parties for want of notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.. The application otherwise is not maintainable for want of cause of action against the appellant/opponent.
10. He further stated: "That with regard to para. 1 of the application, the applicants may be the owners of the property but the opponent has not been informed either by the previous owners of the property about the sale of the property nor the present applicants sent such intimation, as required under law, to the opponent."
11. In para. 7 of the written-statement the appellant/stenant submitted as under:-- "That a notice dated 10-2-1987 also returned with the postal endorsement refused. It transpired that the said Saleem and Muhammad entered into an agreement for sale of the property to Ahmed Ali Muhammad, Yousuf Younus and Mst. Kulsum Ali Muhammad. However, neither the new purchasers intimated of such transfer of property in their favour not the previous owners intimated to the opponent as required under law. The opponent with a view to avoid any sort of complaint, preferred an Application bearing No,1447 of 1987 and started depositing rents in Court in the name of previous owners as well as present applicants requesting the Hon'ble Court that the opponent be allowed to continue the amount depositing in Court till such time the same is accepted by either of the owners."
12. During trial affidavit-in-evidence of Muhammad Ishaq son of Haji Ibrahim, Rent Controller and Attorney of the respondents/applicants was filed, who produced the General Power of Attorney as marked ' A' and stated that the respondents/landlords are the owners of the building constucted on Plot No,3270 and that the appellant/opponent is tenant in respect of the shop in building on monthly rent of Rs,600. He also produced photo copies of (i) List of tenants in property Unit No,AK- 20-IS-33A signed and delivered by the earstwhile owners (ii) Registered Deed of Lease in favour of the applicants in respect of Plot No,3270 annexed and marked as A/1-A/2. Appellant/opponent did not pay the rent to the respondents/applicants for the period commencing from 13-8-1986 as such he committed wilful default in payment of rent from 13-8-1986. That the respondents/applicants after purchase of the property from its erswhile owners on 4-10-1988 had sent a notice through their Advocate dated 1-10-1988 requiring the appellant/opponent to pay the rent to Notice was returned undelivered with the report of the postal authority dated 18-10-1988, photo copies of (i) notice, (ii) postal registration receipt, (iii) undelivered envelop, (iv) postal Acknowledgment Due annexed and marked A/3 to A/6 respectively. That copy of the notice dated 1-10-1988 with endorsement dated 2-11-1988 thereon was despatched on 6-11-1988 to the opponent through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due but the opponent had refused to accept the notice. He produce photo copies of (i) notice dated 1-10-1988 with endorsement dated 2-11-1988 thereon and despatched on 6-114988, (ii) Postal Registration Receipt, (iii) Post envelop, and (iv) Postal Acknowledgment Due annexed and marked A/7 to A/10 respectively. The attorney was cross- examined by the learned counsel for the appellant/opponent.
13. Moosa, the appellant/opponent submitted his affidavit-in-evidence stating therein that the application is not maintainable in law for want of privity of contract. In his affidavit-in-evidence in para. 3 he has stated: "It is submitted that the applicants may be the owner of the property but I have not been informed either by the previous owners of the property about the sale of the property nor the present applicants sent any intimation, as required under law to me giving intimation about the change of ownership etc., therefore, in may written statement I have the para. 1 of the application for want of knowledge."
14. He denied that rate of rent is Rs,600 per month as claimed by the respondents but actually rate of rent is Rs,140 per month. According to him he was inducted in the premises as tenant by two persons Saleem and Muhammad alias Baboo who have been realising the rent from him. That the said Saleem and Muhammad alias Baboo failed to co:lect rent from him since November, 1986.
15. The appellant/opponent further submitted in his affidavit-in-evidence as under: "The rent was tendered to them by my personal approach but the same was not accepted as a result of which I remitted the rent by Money Order to Saleem but the same was also not accepted and refused on 23-1-1987 and 3-3-1987. Different photostat copies of money orders are enclosed."
16. He further submitted:- "That I have also sent a notice on 10-2-1987 through may Advocate which was returned with the postal endorsement as 'Refused'. Copy of the notice is enclosed herewith for perusal. It transpired that the said Saleem and Muhammad alias Baboo entered into an agreement of sale of the property to Ahmed Ali Muhammad, Yousuf Younus and Mst. Kulsoom Ali Muhammad. However, neither Saleem and Muhammad attorney nor the alleged new purchasers intimated to me as required under law, I then with a view to avoid any sort of complaint, preferred an Application bearing No,1447 of 1987 and started depositing rent in Court in the name of previous as well as present alleged owners, requesting the Hob'bie Court that I may be allowed to deposit the rent in Court till such time the actual ownership of the property determined and the rent is directly collected."
17. Moosa the appellant/opponent was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondents/applicants and stated in the cross-examination as follows:-- "I know Muhammad alias Babu has expired. When I had deposited rent in Court at that time Muhammad alias Babu had expired, I see Annexture 'E' to my affidavit-in-evidence and say that in that Miscelaneous Rent Case the same Muhammad alias Babo has been named as opponent No,2.
18. Again says that annexures to my affidavit Muhammad alias Babu but against his son. I have not made party to Muhammad alias Babu but Mst. Kulsoom. When I had deposited rent in the Court as per Annexure at that time I did not know if the applicants had purchased the property, I was not sure if 'the present owners had purchased the premises, however, I deposited the rent by mentioning their names as opponents Nos.3, 4 and 5."
19. After completion of the evidence by the parties the learned Rent Controller was pleased to allow the applications and directed the appellant/opponent to put the respondents/landlords in vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises within one month vide judgment dated 31-3- 1992, hence the present F.R.A.
20. I have heard Mr. Shaikh Riaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant who contended that the notice as required under section 18 of the Ordinance has not been served upon the appellants, thus, the appellant remitted the rent to the previous owners by money order which was not accepted. That the appellant started to deposit the rent in Court in the name of previous as well as present owners in Miscellaneous Cases Nos.1446 of 1987 and 1447 of 1987 respectively. That there is not wilful default on the part of the appellant in payment of rent. Mr. Sh. Riaz Ahmad referred the following authorities:
(1) 1986 CLC 1513, (2) 1990 CLC 588, (3) 1990 CLC 1311, (4) PLD 1991 Kar. 452, (5), PLD 1991 SC 835.
21. Mr. M. Aziz Malik, learned counsel for the respondents contended that notice as required under the law was served upon the appellant. That the respondents/landlords are the actual owners of the property and they have submitted documents in support of their ownership before the learned Rent Controller. That notices as required under section 18 of the Ordinance were issued by the counsel for the respondents/landlords and despatched and addressed to the appellants under registered post AD and the envelop alongwith postal receipt supplied and endorsement thereon have been produced before the learned Rent Controller by the respondents while recording the evidence of their attorney. That the appellants are wilful defaulter in payment of rent. Learned counsel relied upon the following authorities:
(1) PLD 1965 (W.P.) Lahore 126, (2) 1982 CLC 1530,
(3) 1982 SCMR 237, (4) 1991 CLC 1134, (5) PLD 1993 Kar. 50, (6) 1991 MLD 1088.
22. It would be pertinent to refer to the contents of the memo. of appeal filed by the appellants whereas the contention raised by the appellant in their written statement filed before the Rent Controller as opponents are already referred to hereinabove and evidence so adduced by the parties in support of their case about the service of notice as required under the Ordinance alongwith postal receipt and acknowledgement due and endorsement of the Postal Authority. As regards the F.R.A. No,379 of 1991 para. 3 of the memo. of appeal filed by the appellant reads as follows: "On failure of the then owner of the property to accept rent so remitted, the appellant came to know that the property was being sold and as such filed a Miscellaneous Rent Application No,1446 of 1987 in the name of previous as well as present owners of the property in Court though no notice whatsoever was received by her and continued depositing rent in the names of the previous as well as present owners."
23. Whereas Mst. Halima Bai in her cross-examination has stated as follows: "Again vol. says that one advocate had sent me a notice but I had refused to receive it."
24. As far as F.R.A. No,281 of 1992 is concerned the appellant in para. 6 of his memo. of appeal has stated as follows: "Secondly his money order sent to the previous owner also not accepted and the appellant having come to know about the agreement of sale, sent a notice and started depositing rent in Court in the names of previous as well as present owners."
25. Again in para. 7 of the Memo. of Appeal he has stated: "It is further submitted that with regard to other tenants as well of the building this was a common ground of refusal taken by the present respondents."
26. Again in memo. of appeal in ground 'A; the appellant has stated as follows: "in the meantime somebody informed him about the agreement for sale between the previous owner as well as the present owners, the appellant without further loss of time started depositing rent in Court as an abandoned caution with a view to avoid any delay in payment."
27. Now I would like to discuss the case-law referred by the learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the contents of the rent applications, seeking ejectment, was filed before the Rent Controller, documents and evidence adduced by them and grounds taken by the appellants in their memo. of appeals referred and reproduced hereinabove.
1. 1986 CLC 1513. (Ghayasuddin Ahmad v. Abdul Wali): In this authority learned Single Judge of this Court observed that change in ownership of property, relationship of parties as landlord and tenant comes into existence when title and rights of original owner were transferred to subsequent owner. In the case in hand the respondents through their valid documents have proved that they are the owners of the demised premises and even admission of the appellants in their written-statement and even in their memo. of appeal show that the appellants were well-aware of the transfer of the property to the respondents of the demised premises as owners. In my humble opinion this authority is not applicable to the present case.
2. 1990 CLC 588. (Muhammad Ashraf Magsi v. Mubarak Ali): In this authority it has been observed that mere service of notice on existing tenants on the part of person entering into agreement of sale with owners of the premises, held, by itself would not create tenancy between the Parties. In the case in hand the respondents have purchased the property through registered sale-deed such documents were produced before the learned Rent Controller while adducing evidence on their behalf, there was no agreement of sale. In any case, the above case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, with due respect to the authority on the face of it, this authority is not applicable and helpful to the case of the appellant.
3. Mrs. Mubarak Shah v. Shazadh Pooya 1990 CLC 131: A learned Single Judge of this Court while considering the provisions of section 13-A of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) held that in absence of notice of change of ownership under provisions of section 13-A a tenant not paying rent to new landlord could not be deemed a defaulter. Whereas in the present appeals the case of the respondents is that after purchase of the property notice as required under section 18 of the Ordinance was issued to the appellants through their Advocate under registered Post A.D. cover, service of notice as required under the law has been proved before the Rent Controller. Moreover, even the appellants in their written statements and in their appeals have admitted that they were in the knowledge that the demised premises have been purchased by the respondents, as such in my humble opinion with due respect to the authority the same is not applicable and helpful to the case of the appellants.
4. Moizur Rehman v. Mrs. Fakhra Javed PLD 1991 Karachi 452: In this authority the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that tenant having deposited rent in the name of former landlady before service of notice of transfer of ownership of premises in question, he could not be deemed to have defaulted in payment of rent. Whereas in the appeals in hand it has come on record that the appellants were in the knowledge about purchase of the property by the respondents through registered Post A.D. notice. The envelope containing the notice alongwith postal receipt endorsement, were produced by the respondents in evidence which has gone unchallenged. Moreover, in their written statement and in their appeals the appellants have admitted that they came to know that the demised premises were purchased by the respondents and keeping in view the same fact both the appellants without offering or tendering rent through money order, deposited the rent before the learned Rent Controller, in the names of respondents as well as previous owner, which clearly show that they were actually in the knowledge that the respondents are the owners of the demised premises. Moreover, the appellant Moosa in his affidavit-in-evidence specially in para. 3, para. 6, 7 and in his cross-examination referred to hereinabove and reproduced show that he was in the knowledge of transfer of the property in favour of the respondents, even then he wilfully did not offer or tender the rent through money order to the respondents on contrary he deposited the rent in the name of the respondents as well as previous owner. So far as the case of Mst. Halima Bai is concerned she has also admitted in cross-examination that one Advocate has sent her a notice but she refused to receive it. The actual words of the appellant has been referred and reproduced in the earlier part of this order.
28. Under the circumstances, mentioned hereinabove this authority in any case is not applicable to the present case.
5. Mazharul Islam v. Mahfooz Ali PLD 1991 SC 835: In this authority their lordship of Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that purchaser of rented premises is not entitled to rent for period prior to purchase. Rent for said period would not be due in terms of section 18 of the Ordinance. Whereas in these appeals in view of the written statements and evidence so recorded the appellants were already in the knowledge of the purchase of the property by the respondents and it was incumbent on the appellants to offer and tender rent to them through money orders for which both the appellants have failed, whereas even according to them when they came to know about the purchase of the property by the respondents they as an abandoned caution without offering or tendering rent through money order to the respondents, deposited the rent in Miscellaneous rent cases mentioned hereinabove, as such the facts of this authority in the above circumstances are not applicable to the present appeals.
29. Now I would like to discuss the case-law referred by Mr. M. Aziz Malik, Advocate for the respondents:
1. Bashir Ahmad v. Mumtaz Khan PLD 1965 (W.P.) Lahore 126: In this authority it has been held by the learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court that notice sent by registered post A.D. received back with endorsement 'refused'. Notice if approved to be correctly addressed and posted, presumed to have been received by addressee. Examining postal peon as witness to prove endorsement' formally not necessary. Hereinabove in this case as discussed the notices were issued by the counsel of the respondents through registered post A.D. which were refused and the same were produced before the learned Rent Controller which were, exhibited and marked. Moreover in cross-examination Mst. Halima Bai has admitted to have refused the notice issued to her by the advocate.
2. Abdullah and 2 others v. Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others 1982 CLC 1530: In this authority a learned single Judge of this Court observed that communication properly addressed and posted-presumption in relation to service of notice, held arises.
30. 3.Muhammad Ashraf v. Abdul Hameed and others 1982 SCMR 237(2): Finding of fact recorded by tribunal having exclusive jurisdiction---Not ordinarily reviewed.
4. Major (Retd.) Muhammad Yousuf v. Mehraj-ud-Din and others 1986 SCMR 751.
31. Their lordships of Supreme Court have observed in considering section 13-A that relationship of landlord and tenant if service of notice is not established it would amount to absence of relationship of landlord and tenant. Furthermore their lordship have observed that rent not having been paid even after institution of application for eviction. In both these appeals notice as required under section 18 of the Ordinance has been served upon the appellants, which even the same has not denied by the appellants in their written-statements as well as in their appeals but their plea is that as abandoned caution they deposited the rent in Miscellaneous rent cases in the name of the previous owners as well as the respondents.
32. 5.Ghulam Samdani v. Abdul Hameed 1992 SCMR 1170: Their lordships have laid down that if a tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant, he is liable to eviction straightaway without recording of evidence on the other allegations of default, damage to property and personal need, when default in payment of rent was conceded by tenant himself. For the facts and circumstances viz service of notice, written-statement filed by the appellants, their affidavit-in-evidence coupled with the cross-examination and their admission that without effering or tendering rent through money order, the appellants deposited the rent as abandoned caution with the learned Rent Controller in Miscellaneous rent cases show that they committed wilful default in payments of rent.
33. 6.Muhammad Raghib Abdul Razzak PLD 1994 Karachi 20: Learned Single Judge of this Court has held that notice under section 18 of the Ordinance was not necessary even in cases where eviction was sought on ground of default in payment of rent under sub-clause (ii) of section 15(2) of the Ordinance when it is established that the tenant had knowledge of the transfer. In these appeals the appellants were already in the knowledge of transfer of the property in favour of the respondents and as an abandoned caution they deposited the rent with the Rent Controller without offering or tendering rent to the respondents.
34. 7.Mst. Kulsum Begum and another v. Muhammad Siddique 1991 CLC 1134: A learned Single Judge of this Court has held that in case, of change of ownership of the rented premises is sent by the new owners in writing by registered post A.D. it would be considered to be sufficient compliance of the provisions of the law. Even though such intimation actually is not received by the tenant. On the contrary herein in these appeals the appellants according to the written statement and affidavit-in-evidence coupled with cross-examination show that the appellants were in the knowledge of the transfer of the property and as abondoned caustion they without offering or tendering rent to the respondents and deposited with the Rent Controller against the spirit of law.
35. 8.Mst. Nadira Yusuf v. Sheikh Muhammad Arshad 1991 MLD 1088: In this authority learned Single Judge of this Court observed that actual receipt of notice for intimation of change in ownership of rented premises is not an essential requirement of law.
36. Despatch of such intimation sent to a tenant on his known address by registered post by itself was sufficient compliance of requirements of section 18 of the Ordinance. For the facts stated hereinabove I am of the firm opinion that notices as required under section 18 of the Ordinance have been served upon the appellant.
9. Azeemuddin (deceased) through his Legal Heirs v. Mst. Hamida Begum and 2 others PLD 1993 Karachi 50: In this case it has been held that disputed rent of the premises admittedly neither was offered by tenant to landlord personally nor same was tendered by tenant through money order. Mere deposit of rent in the Court of Rent Controller at a subsequent stage to create a safeguard against penalty likely to be imposed for non-payment of rent, would be of no avail to tenant. In the appeals in hand also as stated hereinabove the appellants did not offer/tender the rent to the respondents through money order but straightaway after having knowledge that the premises were purchased by the respondents, they started depositing rent in the name of previous owners as well as in the name of respondents.
37. With due respect to the authorities referred by Mr. Shaikh Riaz Ahmad, with all humbleness at my command, I am of the firm opinion that the same are not relevant for the decision of the present appeals whereas the case-law relied upon by Mr. M. Aziz Malik discussed hereinabove is relevant and applicable to the facts of the present appeals which I respectfully follow.
38. Contents of the written-statements filed by the appellants as opponent before the Rent Controller, affidavit-in-evidence filed by them and relevant portions of the same reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment, the admission of the appellant in cross-examination, referred to reproduced hereinabove and their own admission in their memo. of appeals filed before this Court, stating therein that they came to know that respondents have purchased the property whereas on the other hand they did not offer tender the rent to the respondents through money orders but on their own accord they started depositing rent in the name of the previous owner as well as the respondents. Service of notice issued by the respondents through registered post A.D. which has been produced by the Attorney of the respondents before the Rent Controller alongwith the postal endorsement shows that notice as required under section 18 of the Ordinance stands served on both the appellants. Even after service of notice they did not offer or tender rent to the respondents.
39. Considering all the facts, circumstances and case-laws the sum total of the entire above discussion is that both these appeals are without merits substance. Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed. However, the appellants are granted four month's time so as to vacate and hand over the peaceful possession of the demised premises to the respondents.
40. On 2-3-1998 after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, both the appeals were dismissed by short order. Above are the reasons for the same.