1994 PLP 1891 (CLC)

4. After becoming the owner of the premises in, question, under a valid title she served a notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, to Amir Shah to recover possession of the rented premises as she needed it for her personal use and also demanded payment of rent. She did not succeed with the notice which necessitated filing of the ejectment application referred to hereinabove.

5. Deceased Amir Shah resisted the ejectment application and claimed that the house in question was purchased by one Bibi Jan, his mother‑in‑law on 9‑4‑1977, and he lived with her alongwith his family throughout. On the basis of such assertion he denied his relationship of being a tenant of the respondent of the rented premises in dispute:

6. The Rent Controller on the basis of averments of the parties settled the following points for his consideration: (1) Whether, there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. If so, what would be the effect? (2) What should be the order?

7. The Rent Controller, after appraising the evidence produced by the parties, decided the first point in affirmative and as its consequence allowed the application, on the second point. He passed his judgment on 27‑9‑1991. During pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, Amir Shah died and his legal heirs were brought on record. The present appeal has been filed against that judgment by the legal heirs of Amir Shah.

8. Syed Safdar Hussain Advocate for the appellants has mainly contended that the Rent Controller has taken erroneous view of the evidence on record and held that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and pointed out that he has passed the judgment on the point mainly on consideration of lqrar Nama dated 18‑2‑1989 (page 85), which was allegedly signed ‑ by Amir Shah predecessor of the appellants before the Municipal Councillor. This document according to him is interpolated where the name of "Hameed Akbter" has been changed into Jamil Akhter. He further contended that the lease of the plot in question has been obtained by the respondent from Karachi Municipal Corporation, due to Manipulation and the appellants have filed a suit against the ‑ respondent and Karachi Municipal Corporation for cancellation of lease deed. Since the title of respondent is disputed the Rent Controller could not decide the case of the respondent. To support such contention Syed Safdar Hussain has placed reliance on the cases reported in 1985 CLC 2085, 1983 SCMR 1064 and 1986 CLC 1577.

9. Mr. Malik M. Saeed, Advocate for the respondent supports the judgment of the Rent Controller and contended that Amir Shah was examined in the case before the Rent Controller, and he had admitted his signature on the Iqrar Nama (page 85), but claimed that the signature was obtained by coercion. In order to support 'his case that the document was interpolated, he produced a photostat copy of the document said to have been signed by him before the Municipal Councillor. There is no difference between the document at page 85 and the photostat copy produced by him. According to this document corrections if any were made ‑before the document was actually signed by the parties. Mr. Malik M. Saeed further pointed out that in the event appellants finally succeed in the suit that judgment will‑have its own course and the appellants can easily recover the possession from the respondents on the basis of such judgment. To support his contention he has relied on the cases reported in PLD 1985 SC 1, 1983 SCMR 1064, 1990 CLC 1937 and PLD 1991 SC 242.

10. The appellants in fact rely on the agreement of sale of the house in question said to have been executed by original owner in favour of Bibi Jan, mother‑in‑law of Amir Shah in the year 1977. Bibi Jan is said to have since died. This document was ignored by the Rent Controller as Mst. Bibi Jan or her successors‑in‑interest ,.failed to take any action to clear their title to property on the basis of such document for 14 years. As against it, Karachi Municipal Corporation, who are the owners of the land have executed a valid lease‑deed in favour of the respondent and thereby conferred on her a valid title to property. Amir Shah (since deceased) the original tenant had in the year 1989, himself admitted to be the tenant of the premises in question and executed the document referred to above in presence of Councillor of the Municipal Corporation. The alleged interpolation or its execution under coercion has been nullified through the production of photostat copy of the original document by him. He admitted to have signed it and produced its photostat copy. On examination of the photostat copy it is found to be the true copy of the original Iqrarnama produced at page 85.

11. In these circumstances, burden heavily lay on the appellants to have proved the title of the premises in question, which so far they have not been able to do so. For such reasons as are mentioned above the conclusion of the Rent Controller that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties cannot be disturbed. The other ground advanced by Mr. S. Safdar Hussain, that the suit about the title is pending and, therefore, decision in the matter be deferred is also of no consequence for the simple reason that the application has been allowed on the ground of personal bona fide use and premises in dispute will be in possession of the respondent and in the event, the appellants succeed in the suit as observed in the case reported in PLD 1991 SC 242, they can easily recover its possession.

12. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss it.

13. Time of three months is, however, allowed to the appellants to vacate the premises provided they continue to pay rent regularly and in the event they fail to vacate the premises and hand over to the respondent by that time, the Rent Controller shall issue writ of possession without notice to them. H.B.T./1‑225/K Appeal dismissed.