1992 PLP 1997 (MLD)

This appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Mehar on 3‑9‑1984.

2. Briefly the case of the appellant is that he was let out the shop bearing C.S. No.1205 situated in Ward `A' on Mehar Larkana Road by the present respondent on the monthly rent of Rs.250 for a fixed period of 11 months as per agreement of tenancy. It is further the case of the applicant that this agreement of tenancy expired by the end of May, 1982 and thereafter the present appellant/tenant neither vacated the shop nor paid the rent. The rent application was therefore filed on two grounds firstly the expiry of the period contemplated and secondly on the, ground of default. The learned Rent Controller was pleased to frame the following three issues:‑‑ "(1) Whether the applicant has let out the shop in dispute for a fixed period of 11 months? If so what is its effect? (2) Whether the opponent has failed to pay the rent after May 1982 and thus committed default in the payment of rent? (3) What should the order?."

3. The learned Rent Controller found the first issue against the tenant and allowed the ejectment application giving fi0 days time to the present appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the shop to the landlady. The issue of default was answered in favour of tenant. Being aggrieved the present appellant has filed this appeal.

4. I have heard Mr. Nooruddin Sarki, learned counsel for the respondent. I will first take up issue No.1. The said agreement of tenancy has been produced in the evidence before the Rent Controller as Ex.l

0. This agreement, executed in vernacular, shows that this is signed by the present appellant and two witnesses but does not bear the signature of the landlady. Mr. Sarki has assailed this agreement to be not in accordance with law and therefore not an agreement of tenancy as required under section 5 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Even the provisions of section 7 of the Contract Act provided that in order to convert a proposal into a compromise there must be an acceptance which should be unqualified. It may further be observed that Section 5 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance lays down as under:‑‑ "

5. Agreement between landlord and tenant.‑‑(1) The agreement by which a landlord lets out any premises to a tenant shall be in writing and if such agreement is not compulsory registrable under any law for the time being in force, it shall be attested by, signed by, and sealed with the seal of the Controller within whose jurisdiction the premises is situate or, any Civil Judge or First Class Magistrate. (2) Where any agreement by which a landlord lets out any premises to a tenant is compulsorily registrable under any law for the time being in force, a certified copy of the registered Iced and where the agreement is not so registrable the original decd duly attested under subsection (1), shall be produced and accepted in proof of relationship of the landlord and tenant: Provided that nothing in this section shall affect any agreement between the landlord or tenant immediately before coming into force of this Ordinance."

5. In view of the above legal position the present agreement (Ex.10) cannot be said to be an agreement executed in law and would not have the same force as an agreement of tenancy. In these circumstances I set aside the findings of the learned Rent Controller on issue No.1 and hold that the relationship of landlord and tenant in the present case would be governed according to the provisions applicable to statutory tenants and not contractual tenants.

6. On the issue of default the learned Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that no default has been committed by the appellant. The landlady has not challenged this finding of the Rent Controller. 1n this view of the matter I allow this appeal and set aside the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller. The result is that the rent application filed by the present respondent for ejectment stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. AA./A‑1238/K Appeal accepted.