DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Through these petitions for leave to appeal, petitioners have assailed the common judgment, dated 15.12.1999 by learned Judge in Chambers of Sindh High Court dismissing F.R,As. Nos. 252 to 259 of 1999 filed by the petitioners.
2. Facts in brief are that respondents Abdul Rauf, Abdul Razzak, Muhammad Farooq, Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad lqbal filed separate application for ejectment of the petitioners alleging that the petitioners on the ground of default since September, 1 992 and subletting the premises wit-lout the consent of the respondents. It was averred that building known as Ruby Centre was purchased by them from Hajiani Zubeda and her son Nauman through -registered sale-deed, dated 30,10.1993. They served 'notice of change of ownership and demand of rent on the petitioners but did not pay rent and despite service of notice proceeded to sublet the demised premises in their possession.
3. Petitioners contested the rent applications and Mukhtar Hussain Naqvi in the 'written reply stated that he was put in possession of 16 apartments by the previous owners through Haji Ismail, the husband of Zubeda and father, of Nauman after receiving huge amount of Pugree. It was claimed that he had `acquired an implied right to sublet the premises as obviously he did not need 16 tenements for personal occupation. He further asserted that Haji Ismail attorney of the owners had agreed to sell the building to him but later he had backed out. He filed Suit No. 476 of 1992 for specific performance of the contract of sale against original owners in the High Court of Sindh and Suit No. 1014 of 1994 before the High Court seeking cancellation of the sale-deed in favour of the respondents.
4. At the conclusion of the trial, eviction of the petitioners was allowed by the Rent Controller.
Petitioners filed First Rent Appeals which were also dismissed, hence these petitions for leave to appeal.
5. Mr. Muhammad Sherif learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners contended that the two suits filed by the appellants are pending before the learned Sindh High Court on 'its original side and the Rent Controller should not have passed the ejectment order; that the learned Judge, in Chambers has not properly appreciated the evidence and the case-law and also not considered the submissions made by the petitioners fully. Learned counsel further submitted that registered sale-deed 'produced by the respondents is false, fabricated and invalid; that in any 'case respondents were bound to clear their title to the tenements; that the petitioners deposited rent in different miscellaneous rent cases and that the learned High Court having passed status quo order in Suit No. 476 of 1992 orders of eviction were illegal. He cited Najmuddin v. Zamir Ahmad (PLD 1982 Kar. 188), Rehmatullah v. A.I Muhammad (1983 SCM R 1064), MM. Hajra Bai v. Allah Din (1993 CLC 1693), Hussain Khan and Sons v. Ibrahimji Sulemanjee Mithaiwala (1995 CLC 446) and Jan Muhammad v. A. Razzak (1999 SCM R 2924).
6. On the other hand, Mr. K.A. Wahab, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents urged that respondents had purchased the tenements through registered sale-deed; that notice under Section 18 'of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance was duly served upon the petitioners- but they did not offer, remit or pay rent to the landlords; that even on the face of record act of subletting was not denied by the petitioners; that the petitioners did not even specifically claim the title over the property under the Transfer of Property Act in their written statement and thus the Rent Controller had rightly allowed the rent applications. He submitted that the learned Judge in Chambers had considered entire facts of the case and lawfully maintained the judgment of the Rent Controller which does not call for any interference. Learned counsel cited Muhammad Saeed v. Akhtar Ahmed (1999 M LD 1945) and Hayatullah v. Abdul Rasheed (2000 SCM R 845).
7. The case of Rehmatullah (supra) is quite different and distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In the above case tenant was original landlord of the disputed shop and case set up by the landlord was that the tenant had sold the shop in dispute for Rs.2,500 and executed a sale- deed and rent note stated that there could be no question of sale of a shop of a market value of more than Rs.30,000 for Rs.2,500 Rent Controller held that there was no evidence of payment of sale price or execution of rent note in the presence of eye-witnesses and dismissed the ejectment application. In appeal one Additional District Judge upset the view taken by the Rent Controller but he observed at the same time that the tenant, if so advised might file civil suit for the cancellation of sale-deed and rent note. Thereupon the tenant moved the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction but without any success. In this background this Court held that landlord should establish his title before a Civil Court as complicated questions were involved, whereas in the case in hand civil suits filed by the petitioners before Sindh High Court are still pending.
8. Advisedly we refrain from dilating upon the pendency of the suits which may affect the rights of either of parties. Suffice it to say, since a valid registered sale-deed has been produced by the respondents therefore they are rightly held as owners by the Courts below. In any case, their title has not yet been successfully disturbed. In Jan Muhammad 's case (supra), if the tenant requires the new owner to establish his claim of ownership to the satisfaction- of the tenant so that rent may be paid to him or to supply further particulars as to the time from which the new owner had become entitled to receive rent, this Court held that such demand of tenant would not be unjustified whereas in this case after receipt of the notice the petitioner did not offer or remit rent to the respondent as such this authority, in our humble opinion, is not relevant. So far as rest of the cases are concerned, equally facts of those cases are distinguishable and not favourable to the petitioners in this case.
9. This Court in case of Tahir Hussain Malik v. Najma Rafi (1995 SCM R 1407) has held that a registered sale-deed always had precedence over a. Prior unregistered agreement to sell and once the landlord had produced such sale-deed in his favour the tenant could not escape liability to pay rent on the basis of an unregistered prior agreement and was liable to be ejected for default.
10. In Pervaiz Akhtar v. Dr. Muhammad Ahsan (PLD '1988 SC 734). Tenant challenged the title of the landlord solely on the ground that the gift. Made by their mother in their favour was invalid as it had not been approved by the Cantonment Board and this Court held that the validity or otherwise of the gift was a matter between the landlord and the Cantonment Board and the tenant being an outsider had no lOcus standi to question the same. In Muhammad lshaque v. Khursheed Alam- (PLD 1988 SC 353) it was observed that once the property was transferred by the registered gift deed the donee had become owner thereof and was entitled to receive the rent and the tenant could not question the validity of the gift which could only be challenged by the heir of the donor., In Muhammad Saeed v. Akhtar Ahmed (1999 M LD 1945), one of us (Hamid A.I Mirza, J) laid down that landlords had got registered lease deed in their favour in 'respect of disputed property therefore, tenant could not ,deny that he was not their tenant. In Hayatullah' v. Abdul ,Rasheed (2000 SCM R 845) this Court observed as under:- "It is notan inflexible rule that whenever relationship of landlord and tenant is denied the Rent Controller is invariably bound to refer the' 'applicant to approach the Civil .Court for establishment of his ownership. Every case is to be decided on its own peculiar facts. If it is found that the denial by the tenant of the relationship of tenant and landlord is frivolous and baseless as he has not been able to urge, or being anything substantial in support of his plea and that the stand of the landlord is supported by sole and cogent evidence on record, then the Rent Controller would be failing in his jurisdiction not to decide the controversy himself and instead directing the arties to resolve the dispute in the Civil Court."
11. We have given our anxious thought to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties as well as examined the case-law referred to hereinabove. Ultimately crux of the discussion appears to be that admittedly respondents are the owners of the property which they had purchased through registered sale-deed. Statutory notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance was served. Upon the petitioners but they did not offer, tender or remit rent to the landlords. Subletting of the demised premises is also not denied by the petitioners. There are valid concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below wherein contentions of the petitioners have rightly been repelled: In our view, we do not find any illegality and or any material irregularity in the orders by the Courts below:The ease-law cited by Mr. K.A.
Wahab is relevant and helpful to the case of the respondents. Resultantly the petitions are without any merit and substance which must fail. Accordingly the same are hereby dismissed and leave is refused. However, the petitioners are allowed twelve months' time to hand over vacant possession of -the demised premises to the respondent's subject to payment of rent and other lawful charges.
After expiry of the above period, writ of possession may be issued without' notice with .Police aid, if necessary.