1985 PLP 175 (MLD)

This is an appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the judgment, dated 30-5 -19134 of the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller. Court No. XIX, Karachi, in R.C. No.2814 of 1983, directing the appellant to hand over the vacant possession -of Shop No. 5-A, situated in Bismillah Market Sector 36-D, Landhi Colony, Karachi to the respondent within sixty clays of the order.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant is a tenant of the respondent in respect of shop bearing No.5-A situated at Bismillah Market, Sector 36-D, Landhi Colony, Karachi, for the last 7 or 8 years. The respondent on 21-7-1981 filed an ejectment application in the Court 'of learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller Court No. XIX, Karachi on the ground that the appellant was a nuisance and that op 28th June, 1983 tire appellant demolished a part of the wali of the shop and made an opening and fixed window therein whereby he damaged the premises in question. The learned Rent Controller framed the following Issues:-- (1) Whether the opponent has caused damage to the case property and thus made alteration and additions without the consent of the applicant? (2) What should the order be?

3. After examining the applicants and his three witnesses and also examining the opponent and his two witnesses, the learned (tent Controller by his judgment dated 30-5-1984 allowed the said application for ejectment. The finding by the learned Rent Controller was recorded in the following words: "I, therefore, hold that the opponent has damaged the case premises and made substantial addition and alteration without the permission of the applicant and thus he is liable to be ejected from the case premises."

4. Mr. Shaukat Mahmood learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant made no opening or fixed the window which, according to him, existed for the last 7-8 years. Alternatively he submitted that by the making of the opening in the wall and fixing a window therein no material damage has been caused by the appellant.

5. The first contention has no subsistance at all. The evidence of respondent, his son and two other witnesses who are neighbours leaves no room for doubt that an opening was made by the appellant in the wall and a big window was fixed therein by the appellant unauthorisedly, which is also evident by the photograph Exh.l/C at page 27 of the record of the case. The photograph itself speaks that tire window was fixed very recently as the masonary work being of a recent origin is quite visible.

6. As regards the alternate submission made by the learned counsel I also find no force in it. The respondent in his examination-in--chief has clearly stated that the appellant by breaking the wall has considerably damaged his property. In his cross-examination he has also clearly stated that the opening has caused damage to the shop by making a big hole in one of its, walls. He has further later, that because of fixing a window in the shop he has suffered a loss of Its.10,000 or 11,

000. Because of the window, get up and outlook "of his shop has been decreased". Muhammad Sami, the son of the applicant, has also stated that the fixing of the window ire the shop after breaking tire cemented wall will definitely result in impairing the value of the shop. It also appears from the evidence of the other two witnesses produced) by the respondent that they saw the work of breaking wall arid fixing the window in process, and informed the respondent and Iris son W110 immediately came to the slot and objected to tire unauthorised demolision of the wall but the appellant, who used the filthy language, did not, stop the work of breaking the wall and fixed the window later on.

7. For the reasons discussed above, I find that the learned Rent Controller has rightly allowed the application for ejectment and the impugned judgment calls for no interference. The appeal is, therefore dismissed with costs. H. A. K. Appeal dismissed.