' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment dated 16-10-1994 passed by High Court of Sindh whereby F.R.A. No,67 of 1992 filed by the appellant was dismissed and order of Controller dated 30-11-1991 was maintained.
2. Briefly stating facts of the case are that premises in dispute bearing No, M-R1/42 Marriot Road, Karachi is in occupation of the appellant in respect of tenement No,2. Initially the premises was owned by Muzaffar Ali son of Ghulam Ali who has leased it out to appellant at monthly rental of Rs,150 plus Rs,7.50 as betterment tax. Previous landlord/owner vide Rent Case No,82 of 1979 sought eviction of appellant from the premises. However,' during pendency of proceedings he sold the premises in dispute to respondents vide registered sale-deed entered at No,1872 dated 11-8-1980.
On acquiring rights of ownership respondents submitted an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. With the prayer that they be impleaded as applicants in place of original owner Muzaffar Ali son of Ghulam Ali and his name may be deleted. It may be noted that in the application it was specifically stated that respondents had stepped into the shoes of previous owner and have derived the legal rights to prosecute the matter. On the application counsel appearing for appellant recorded no objection if the intervenor is brought on record. Accordingly with consent the application was allowed and direction was issued to file amended plaint. It is stated that said application remained pending till 1986 when it was dismissed in default on 19th August, 1986.
However, in the meanwhile the appellant though has acquired knowledge that respondents are the owners/landlords of the premises but did not pay rent to them nor deposited the same in their favour. Subsequent thereto in the year 1988 the respondents instituted fresh ejectment application against the appellant under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance") on the sole ground that appellant has committed default in payment of rent at least for last three years from the date of institution of ejectment application.
3. The appellant contested eviction application denying the claim of respondents both on legal as well as factual pleas. It was the case of the appellant that eviction application is not maintainable because notice as required under section 18 of the Ordinance has not been served upon him.
Besides it neither the respondents nor the previous landlord has supplied him the copy of the sale- deed.
4. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues arising out of pleadings of the parties:-- "(1) Whether notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 has been served on the opponent?
(2) Whether the opponent is defaulter in payment of monthly rent?
(3) What should the order be?
5. After observing procedural formalities the Rent Controller vide order dated 30th November, 1991 allowed the ejectment application and directed the appellant to hand over vacant and peaceful physical possession of the premises in dispute to the respondents within 60 days after passing of the order:
6. This order was assailed by appellant before High Court of Sindh, Karachi but without getting any relief because the appeal was dismissed concluding therein that the order of the Controller under appeal is not open to exception. As such instant proceedings have been initiated.
7. Learned counsel for appellant contended that no notice as required under section 18 of the Ordinance was served upon the appellant in the manner prescribed by law, therefore, eviction application was not maintainable and eviction proceedings initiated against appellant on basis of incompetent eviction application which resulted in passing of impugned order by learned High Court of Sindh being unsustainable in law deserves to be set aside.
8. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents contended that the respondents have brought in the notice/knowledge of appellant that they have become the owners/landlords of the premises by submitting an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Filed in, the proceedings of eviction initiated by previous owner against the appellant being Ejectment Application No,82 of 1979. The application was not contested by appellant. To the contrary consent was given by their counsel to allow impleadment of the respondents as applicants. He further submitted that thereafter the matter remained pending for a period of about 6/7 years before the Controller but during this period appellant never paid rent nor otherwise denied the entitlement of respondents to recover the rent. Inasmuch as after termination of earlier proceedings when towards 1988 the respondents submitted fresh eviction application, relationship of landlord and tenant was not denied by appellant except raising unwarranted objection of non-supply of copy of the sale-deed and the previous landlord had not given notice to appellant about the change of ownership.
Therefore, for such reasons provisions of section 18 of the Ordinance substantially stands complied with and as there was contumacious denial by the appellant to pay rent to the respondent, the Controller as well as First Appellate Court were quite justified in forfeiting tenancy of appellant.
9. We have heard parties' counsel at considerable length and have also carefully gone through the earlier proceedings initiated by previous owner Muzaffar Ali being No,82 of 1979 as well as the contents of application filed by respondents under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. For their impleadment as applicants. It is significant to note that in the proceedings the respondents not only disclosed the fact that they had attained ownership of the property through a registered sale-deed but have also attorned the appellant as their tenant. The application was not opposed and learned Controller allowed the same in terms of its prayer. No doubt that as per requirement of section 18 of the Ordinance a landlord who has acquired the rights of ownership and has also become the landlord is supposed to issue notice under registered cover to the tenant but such provision of law can be considered to have been substantially complied with if record speaks that intimation about transfer of ownership in favour of respondents has been conveyed by means of convincing source.
In this behalf this Court in the case of Ghulam Samdani v. Abdul Hameed (1992 SCM R 1170) while dealing with a case pertaining to default in payment of rent under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 held that if in earlier proceedings it has come in the notice of the tenant that the property in his possession has been transferred in favour of new landlord he was bound to attorn to him as his landlord and also to tender rent but if he desists from making payment of rent and continues depositing the same in favour of previous landlord it would be deemed that default in payment of rent has been committed. It may be noted that if for sake of arguments it is assumed that appellant had no knowledge about the transfer of the property in the initial round of litigation but at least when eviction application given rise to instant appeal was filed and respondents have asserted themselves to be landlords of the premises the appellant must have gained knowledge and such application can be treated to be as a notice binding the appellant to start making payment of rent and factum of institution of application for ejectment would be deemed to be substantial compliance of the provisions of section 18 of the Ordinance being a convincing source as it has been held in the cases of (i) Khuda Bakhsh v. Muhammad Yaqoob and others (1981 SCM R 179), (ii) Syed Azhar Imam Rizvi v. Mst. Salma Khatoon (1985 SCM R 24) and (iii)
Major (Retd.) Muhammad Yousuf v. Mehraj-ud-Din and others (1986 SCM R 751). Thus we are of the opinion that the facts and circumstances of the case reveal that appellant had acquired knowledge about transfer of ownership in favour of respondents on two ocasions firstly when application under Order I, Rule, 10, C.P.C. Dated 18-9-1980 was filed and secondly when in the year 1988 the respondents instituted instant ejectment application against appellant which has given rise to instant proceedings but despite of that till 1992 as per the statement made by the learned counsel for appellant at the bar rent was not deposited in favour of respondent, therefore, without any hesitation it is concluded that a wilful default was committed by appellant in making payment of rent.
10. Before parting with the judgment we would also like to observe that the tenant has no right to demand title documents from the landlord on receipt of notice within the meaning of section 18 of the Ordinance because no sooner notice is served upon him or it is otherwise conveyed to him either in the judicial proceedings or by some other reliable source he is bound to accept the new owner as his landlord as held in the cases of Muhammad Ashraf v. Abdul Hameed and others (1982 SCMR 237(2) and Suleman and another v. M.A. Mallick (1988 SCM R 775).
' In view of above discussion we see no merit in appeal as such the same is dismissed. However, a period of three months is allowed to appellant to vacate the premises and hand over its peaceful physical possession to the respondents subject to payment of monthly rent. No order as to costs.