Abdul Rehman v Ahmed Zahir & Anor

(1) Ahmed Zahir (2) Orang Zaib Respondents Property Address: 13 Eve Road, Woking GU21 5JS Title Number: SY659199 Hearing via CVP 23 September 2025 Judge Colin Green Proceeding with the final hearing in the absence of the Applicant

1. This matter concerns the above property (“the Property”) of which the First Respondent, Mr. Zahir, has been registered as proprietor since 11 September 2019. The Property is subject to two unilateral notices in respect of two alleged contracts for the sale and purchase of the Property: a. a notice registered on 9 June 2020 in respect of a contract of sale and purchase dated 5 March 2012 made between Mr. Zahir and the Second Respondent, Mr. Zaib, who is registered as the beneficiary of the notice (“the 2012 Contract”); b. a notice registered on 1 June 2022 in respect of a contract of sale and purchase dated 27 May 2022 made between Mr. Zaib and the Applicant, Mr. Rehman, who is registered as the beneficiary of the notice (“the 2022 Contract”).

2. There have been previous proceedings in which a claim to an interest in the Property has been claimed. In particular, there was a claim by Shamran Rehman, Mr. Rehman’s son, against Mr. Zahir, alleging a beneficial interest in the Property in proceedings in the Guilford County Court. In a judgment dated 27 April 2020 HHJ Evans-Gordon dismissed the claim. From the judgment, the 2012 Contract does not appear to have featured in that case. Subsequently, Mr. Rehman himself claimed a beneficial interest in an application to the Land Registry, referred to this Tribunal (2021/0358) which was struck out by the Tribunal on the footing that although Mr. Rehman was not a party to the County Court proceedings, he was the principal witness for his son, and his evidence was rejected by the Judge.

3. By an application of 29 March 2023, Mr. Zahir applied to cancel the second unilateral notice, in respect of the 2022 Contract, to which Mr. Rehman objected. In brief Mr. Rehman’s case is as follows. He relies on the 2012 Contract: an alleged copy of the seller’s part contract is exhibited to his Amended Statement of Case in these proceedings. That provides that Mr. Zahir will sell the Property to Mr. Zaib for £250,000.00 (with a deposit in the same amount) to be completed on 6 March 2015, but subject a Special Condition 7, which provides: “As soon as 13 Eve Road transfer from Mr. Abdul Rehman to Mr Ahmed Zahir” Mr. Rehman was registered as the proprietor of the Property on 16 December 2013, and as noted above, Mr. Zahir was registered on 11 September 2019.

4. Mr. Rehman also relies on the 2022 contract: an alleged copy of the seller’s part contract is exhibited to his Amended Statement of Case. That provides that Mr. Zaib will sell the Property to Mr. Rehman for £260,000.00 (with a deposit of £26,000.00) to be completed on 26 August 2022, but subject a Special Condition 7, which provides: “The Property can only be transferred to Abdul Rehman once registered in the name of Orang Zaib and all charges are cleared from the land registry from the title of the property”

5. Therefore, it is clear that the interest which Mr. Rehman claims to have acquired under the 2022 Contract with Mr. Zaib is dependent on Mr. Zaib having acquired an interest under the 2012 Contract with Mr. Zahir. Without such an interest there was nothing that Mr. Zaib could have transferred to Mr. Rehman.

6. Mr. Zahir’s case is that he has never had any business dealings with Mr. Zaib, that he did not agree to sell the Property to him, and that he did not sign the seller’s part 2012 Contract exhibited to Mr. Rehman’s Amended Statement of Case. He was unaware of this document until the present proceedings.

7. As regards Mr. Zaib, by paragraph 1 of the Tribunal’s Order of 15 August 2024 he was joined as a Second Respondent with an address for service taken from that given in respect of his unilateral notice: 29 Lockwood Path, Sheerwater, Woking GU21 5RH. It became apparent that Mr. Zaib was not at that address so that by paragraph 1 of the Order of 13 January 2025 it was directed that Mr. Rehman provide an alternative address for service by 5.00 pm on 20 January 2025. No alternative address was provided, and by the order of 29 January 2025, subject to service of that Order and previous Orders to the Woking address, it was directed that further service on Mr. Zaib was dispensed with.

8. The Tribunal has received no communication from Mr. Zaib, and he has played no part in these proceedings. Mr. Rehman did not rely on any witness statement from him.

9. A telephone Pre-trial Review was fixed for 16 September with a virtual hearing via CVP on 23 September. Two applications were made by Mr. Rehman for an adjournment of both, which I refused. I refer to my decisions dated 12 and 16 September. The telephone Pre-trial Review went ahead with only Mr. Zahir present. At the CVP hearing on 16 September, Mr. Zahir was also present, assisted by his daughter, but Mr. Rehman did not appear and was not represented.

10. Rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 provides that: “If a party fails to attend a hearing the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing if the Tribunal— (a) is satisfied that the party has been notified of the hearing or that reasonable steps have been taken to notify the party of the hearing; and (b) considers that it is in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing.”

11. As to requirement (a), it was clear from Mr. Rehman’s applications for an adjournment that he was aware of the hearing. In addition, the Tribunal office had emailed him on Friday 19 September and telephoned him on the 22 and the morning of 23 September, in all cases without any reply.

12. Concerning requirement (b), I considered that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in the absence of Mr. Rehman for the following reasons. a. The only other alternative would be to adjourn the hearing. It is not appropriate to give Mr. Rehman the adjournment I had twice refused by virtue of his non-attendance and not being represented. b. Mr. Rehman had previously claimed that he required an adjournment to obtain legal representation but there is no obvious reason as to why this could not have been put in place for the hearing. c. Mr. Zahir is an elderly gentleman, approaching 85, and he wished this litigation to be concluded as soon as possible.

13. Therefore, I did not adjourn but proceeded with the hearing. Since the burden is on Mr. Rehman to establish his case, and he did not provide any argument or evidence, the inevitable consequence was that his case was not made out, and I must direct that effect be given to Mr. Zahir’s application to cancel Mr. Rehman’s unilateral notice.

14. Concerning costs, Mr. Zahir told me that the legal costs he had incurred were negligible and probably pre-dated the reference of his application to the Tribunal. Therefore, I make no order as to costs. Dated this 3 rd day of October 2025 Colin Green By Order of the Tribunal