1986 PLP 1674 (MLD)

The facts are that respondent /landlord Nizamur Rehman Siddiqui, filed Rent Application under section 13(2)(i)(ii) B‑C (iii) (iv) and (vi) of West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on 31‑5‑1977 against appellant on the grounds that he converted residential premises into a factory and installed Lathe Machine. Transformer and Power Motor, without written consent of the respondent. The ground of default in payment of rent was also taken. The appellant denied the allegations in the written statement. He has stated the respondent was his partner, therafore, question of permission is immaterial. The Rent Controller on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: (a) Whether the opponent has committed default in the payment of rent? (b) Whether the applicant requires the premises for reconstruction? (c) Whether the applicant requires the premises for, the use of his wife? (d) Whether the opponents using the premises for the purpose other than for which it was let out to the opponent? The Rent Controller decided only issue No.4 against appellant all other issues his findings are in favour of the appellant. The Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that appellant is using the premises for the purpose other than for which it was let out. The case of respondent is that as per lease agreement the premises will be used for residential purpose only. This fact is mentioned in the agreement, dated 3‑1‑1976 which is on the record as Exh.

9. The contention of the appellant is that he had a partnership with respondent, therefore, written consent is not necessary. Mr. Dastgir appearing for the appellant contended that first of all there is partnership between appellant and respondent is in business, which was being carried out, Secondly the Lathe Machine is installed in K.M.C. land not in the rented premises. He has cited P L D 1979 Kar. 597, P L D 1978 Lah. 1054 and P L D 1980 Kar.

126. As regards partnership no documentary proof such as agreement, etc. has been furnished by the appellant in support so as to determine whether they both were carrying on business in the disputed premises. He hat only produced one letter, dated 6‑3‑1975 Exh. 7, showing that there was some agreement between the parties but that was dissolved much before the appellant took the premises on rent by an agreement dated 3‑1‑1976. Even otherwise in document Exh.

7. It is nowhere mentioned that Lathe Machine was installed in the premises and they both use to carry on business. The letter relates to dissolution of partnership in 1975. Now I revert to the next contention of the appellant that Lathe Machine is installed on K.M.C. land. The appellant has not produced any document showing that Lathe Machine is on K.M.C. land or such permission was obtained from any authority. While hearing the appeal on application under section 21(3) for additional evidence was made by appellant. By consent the application was allowed and Nazir of this Court was directed to inspect the site and report. The Deputy Nazir visited the house in presence of appellant and respondent. He submitted his report alongwith map. This report has not been disputed. The extract of report marked 'A' is as under:‑ "This was a room/shed having cement block walls with asbestos sheet roofing without door from front side. There was an open space between the shed and main entrance. There was a door on the backside of this portion. One Lathe Machine and one transformer (Local) were lying in this room/shed. Nobody was working on the Lathe Machine at the time of inspection. The appellant alleged that this room/shed was constructed on K.M.C. land and was not part of the premises. I From the report, it is clear that Lathe Machine and one transformer were lying in a room, having a door at the back side, of the room. The footpath is on the entrance of door. From the map prepared by Deputy Nazir and report it is clear that no K.M.C. land is available between footpath and house. There is a road adjacent to footpath. In view of the above evidence the plea that Lathe Machine is on K . M . C . cannot be sustained. The respondent in his cross‑examination admitted that document Exh. 7 relates to partnership which was dissolved was in respect of a Shop No. 282 in Tie,ber Market. It has been‑ proved from the evidence on record that Lathe Machine and Transformer are installed in the house which was taken on rent for residential purpose. A Therefore, the Rent Controller has rightly decided this issue in favour, of respondent and order passed by the Rent Controller is proper which calls for no interference. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within 60 days from this order. H . B . T . Appeal dismissed.