LAL MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ

1. MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J .---‑Lal Muhammad appellant was the occupant of house No. B‑XI‑6‑S‑1, Gujranwala. It was transferred to him by the Settlement Department under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. He sold the property to one Ejaz Hussain. The purchaser sold the property further to Muhammad Mushtaq and others. Lal Muhammad continued in possession of the property as a tenant of Ejaz Hussain. When the property was transferred to Muhammad Mushtaq and others they served him with a notice under section 13‑A of the Rent Restriction Laws and since the appellant failed to pay the rent within a period of 30 days prescribed by section 13‑A an application for ejectment was filed by them against him.

2. A number of pleas were raised by the present appellant in defence and six issues were framed. The Rent Controller passed an order of ejectment against the appellant on 28th September 1971 and an appeal filed against that order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 11th January 1972. The appellant filed an S. A. O. which was similarly dismissed by the learned Single Judge, hence this Intra Court Appeal.

3. The learned Judge in Chamber declined to grant a certificate of fitness for appeal on two of the three points raised by the appellant and confined it to only point No. 3. Point No. 3 relates to the plea of the appellant that he was entitled to pay the rent within 45 days i.e. 15 days available to him under section 13 plus a further period of 30 days available to him under section 13‑A. This is the only question on which learned counsel rave addressed us.

4. We have gone through section 13‑A and we find that the contention raised by learned counsel is not tenable. A period of 15 days has been fixed by section 13 and there is no dispute about it. Section 13‑A applies only to cases where the property is transferred by the landlord to some other person. In such a case the transferee is required to serve a notice by Registered Post upon the tenant informing him of such transfer, and the tenant shall not be deemed to have defaulted in the payment of rent for the purpose of clause (i) of subsection (2) of section 13 if the rent due is paid within thirty days from the date when the notice should in the normal course have reached him. The period prescribed by section 13 is consequently enlarged to thirty days and this enlarged period begins with the date when the intimation should in the natural course have reached the tenant.

5. Even if the language was stretched to the limit of credulity it will not be possible to hold that this period of thirty days granted by section 13‑A was, in addition to the period of fifteen days granted by section 13 itself. The language of section--13‑A does not admit of such an interpretation.

6. This appeal has, therefore, no force and is dismissed with costs.

7. The appellant shall put the respondents in possession of the property in dispute within ten days from today.

8. S. A. H Appeal dismissed.