1993 PLP 1217 (MLD)

Appellant in person. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 13th September, 1992. The appellant, Mirza Muhammad Sabir Baig, claimed to be the tenant of Flat No.4 on the first floor, a Godown No.15 on the ground floor and a Shop No. 14 on the ground floor in the building bearing No. NP 10/21 on payment of rent at the rate of Rs.13 per month, Rs.12 per month and Rs.5 per month respectively. He carries on the business of preparing "Haleem" in the said premises owned by Respondent Mohammad Saeed. The Appellant filed an application under section 12 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in the Court of VIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (South) complaining that the landlord (Respondent) has failed to carry out repairs to Flat No.4 and other premises including the partition wall and that he be directed to carry out the necessary repairs in the demised tenements. The Respondent, Mohammad Saeed, resisted this application and recorded his objections. Appellant Mirza Mohammad Sabir Baig filed an affidavit in evidence while Respondent filed his counter‑affidavit. Neither of the two parties tendered themselves for cross- examination by the other side nor any evidence was led by either of them. The Rent Controller under the circumstances reached a conclusion that there was no evidence on record in support of the issues settled by him on the basis of the pleadings from either of the two parties and he dismissed the application by his judgment passed on 14‑5‑1992. It is against this judgment that the present appeal under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 has been filed. The Appellant Mirza Muhammad Sabir Baig appeared in person and contended that affidavit in evidence filed by him was sufficient proof of his case while Respondent Mohammad Saeed, who also appeared in person, claimed that the appeal filed by the Appellant was on frivolous grounds. The term "evidence" according to its interpretation provided By Article 2(1)(c) of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984 means all statements that a Court may permit or require to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry and the documents produced for inspection of the Court. Examination of a witness as provided by Articles 132 and 133 of the Qanun‑e -Shahadat, 1984 means examination‑in‑chief, cross‑examination and re -examination, if any. It is only when witness goes through such process that his statement takes the form of evidence in a case. In the present case both the parties had merely filed affidavits in support of their cases. Such affidavits by itself will not be taken to be evidence for the purpose of decision of the inquiry before the Rent Controller are any other Court. The Rent Controller was, therefore, right in dismissing the application. For the above reasons I had by my short order passed on 13‑9‑1992 dismissed the appeal. AA./M‑1792/K Appeal dismissed.