AMANULLAH KHAN (A. KHAN) vs CHOTEY KHAN
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant. The landlord, having acquired the property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, served a notice under Section 30 of the Act. The tenant contested the ejectment application, asserting that no landlord-tenant relationship existed and that the statutory notice was invalid because it was addressed to 'Ayub Khan' instead of his name, Amanullah Khan. The High Court found that the tenant was known by both names, validating the notice. It further ordered the tenant's ejectment directly, noting that since the tenant had denied the landlord-tenant relationship and failed to pay rent, remanding the case to determine default would be an exercise in futility. The Supreme Court upheld this view, holding that because the tenant denied the relationship and defaulted on rent, no purpose would be served by remanding the case. The Court also ruled that the petitioner, having himself invoked the High Court's jurisdiction via a second appeal, was disentitled by his conduct from challenging the competency of that appeal.
- Whether a statutory notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 is valid if addressed to an alias or alternative name by which the tenant is known?
- Can a tenant who has invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court by filing an appeal subsequently challenge the competency of that appeal to seek special leave from the Supreme Court?
- Is it necessary to remand an ejectment case to the Rent Controller to determine the issue of default if the tenant has already denied the landlord-tenant relationship and failed to pay rent?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM. J.-The respondent herein is the owner of House No. IV-B-206/(3-2, R. S. 3/4 situated in Ramswa mi, Karachi. The petitioner was a tuna-it of this premises at a monthly rental of Rs.
30. On the house being transferred to the respondent on 14-9-1962, he served a notice on the petitioner under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, demanding rent for the period froth 14-9-1962 onwards. The petitioner filled to pay the rant and the respondent there--upon filed an application for his ejectment on 1-2-1968 before the Rent Controller. The petitioner the ejectment application on two grounds firstly that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and secondly that the notice served under section 30 was not valid as it was in the name of a wrong person, namely, Ayub Khan. The Rent Controller decided both the issues in the affirmative by order dated 17-9-1968. The petitioner hereupon filed an appeal against the order. Before the Additional District Judge it was contended by the petitioner that his name was Khanzada Amanullah Khan and not Ayub Khan against whom the application was filed and that the Rent Controller in deciding the issue had not considered certain documents in which his name was shown as Amanullah Khan. The Additional District Judge, Karachi by order dated 24-4-1969 remanded the case to the Rent Controller for re-determination of the issues.
2. On remand the Rent Controller by order dated 13-10-1961 held that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties but on the question as to whether the notice was properly addressed to the tenant, he held against the respondent, as in his opinion the name of the petitioner was Amanullah Khan.
3. On appeal the 5th Additional District Judge, Karachi held that the notice served under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was valid and the remanded the case to the Rent Controller by order dated 15-11-1969 for taking further proceedings in the case.
4. The petitioner thereupon assailed this order by way of a Second Appeal in the High Court and a learned Single Judge upon examination of the material on record held that according to his own admission in the previous proceeding he was known both by the name of Amanullah and Ayub Khan and, therefore. The notice under section 30 of the Act was validly served on him. The learned Single Judge further held that since he had disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant, and on that basis had not paid the rent, it was an exercise in futility to allow the Rent Controller to proceed with the case when the petitioner was estopped from proving that he had not committed default in the payment of rent. Accordingly he dismissed the appeal and at the same time ordered ejectment of the petitioner.
5. It was contended before us that the Second Appeal was not competent in view of the decision of this Court in Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain (PLD 1975 SC 457) and, therefore, the judgment is a nullity. But this contention appears to be misconceived, for, it was the petitioner who bad filed the appeal and if according to him, it was incompetent he should not have done so. But having invoked the jurisdiction and the decision being against him he disentitled by his conduct to sect special leave to appeal against it.
6. It was neat contended that there was divergence of opinion on the point as to whether the ejectment application could not allowed straightaway in case the tenant disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant. In support of the proposition that the ejectment application could not be allowed, the learned counsel placed reliance on Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Bashir and others (PLD 1974 Lah. 447). However, a different view was taken by another learned Single Judge of the same High Court in Nisar Ahmad v. Nazar Muhammad (PLD 1974 Lah. 489). But a learned'
7. Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Sind & Baluchistan in Nooruddin and another v.
8. Muhammad Bashir and others (PLD 1976 Kar. 921) dissented from this view. The learned Single Judge in the High Court placed reliance on the case of Nisar Ahmad v. Nazar Muhammad in declining to remand the case to the Rent Controller. However it will not be necessary to examine the validity of the reason. Given for and against the view for the case do it stands it is an admitted position that the petitioner has defaulted in the payment of rent as he did not accept the respondent as his landlord. On this view of the matter it would not have served any purpose to remand the case for the issue of default could not have been disputed.
9. On this view of the matter we see no substance in this petition which ii dismissed.