1989 PLP 175 (CLC)

‑‑‑Ss.2 (f) (j), 15 (2) (ii) (vi) (vii) & 21 (1)‑‑Ejectment of tenant on grounds of default, personal bona fide need and re‑construction‑ Relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑Proof‑‑Tenant who failed to pay or tender rent, disputed ownership of landlord in respect of premises c in dispute and contended that he was living in premises of his own right‑‑Landlord proved his ownership of the premises by producing copies of agreement of sale of premises executed in his favour by its previous owner alongwith approved plan and receipts of payment of sale price‑‑Landlord also produced P.T.I. issued by Excise and Taxation Department in name of previous owner, copy of rent agreement executed and signed by tenant and also legal notice for transfer of ownership under S. 18 of Ordinance sent to tenant‑‑Entire evidence produced by landlord to prove his ownership in respect of premises having gone unchallenged and tenant admittedly having committed default in payment of rent, Rent Controller, held, rightly allowed ejectment application of landlord on grounds of default and other grounds alleged by him. Latifur Rehman Khan Servery for Appellant. Izhar Haider Rizvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th August, 1988. This First Rent Appeal No.45/88 was dismissed in limine on 15‑8‑1988 for the reasons to be recorded later on. The reasons are as under:‑ Mohammad Ibrahim is an owner in respect of the premises Nos.334‑335, situated at Jauhar Colony (Old Golimar) Manghopir Road, Karachi and it is alleged that appellant Amanullah Qureshi is a tenant of Plot No.334 at the monthly rent of Rs.100 per month. The rent case was filed by Mohammad Ibrahim on the ground of default in payment of rent from July 1987 till October 1987. The grounds of personal bona fide requirement, and re‑construction were also taken in the application. The appellant in his written statement disputed the ownership of the respondent and stated that he is living in the said premises of his own right and respondent has obtained lease by misrepresentation and fraud. He has stated that Rent Controller has no jurisdiction as there exists no relationship. Before Rent Controller Abdul Rahim, attorney of the respondent filed affidavit in evidence and produced number of documents. He has produced power of attorney, sale agreement, P.T.I., rent agreement showing that respondent is owner of the property and A entitled to receive the rent. He has produced approved plan and also notice under section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 sent to appellant. The appellant in rebuttal has not filed affidavit in evidence of any other witness nor he has examined himself and on so many hearings he did not appear therefore the Rent Controller had no option but to decide the rent case. Abdul Rahim attorney of the respondent has stated that respondent purchased the premises from previous owner Shirin Zada for a consideration of Rs.26,000 under an agreement dated 19‑4‑1979. He produced such copies of agreement and payment receipts as Ex.A and A.3. He has produced P.T.I issued by Excise and Taxation Department in the name of previous owner Shirin Zada He has also produced photo copy of the rent agreement executed and signed by the appellant, copies of these documents are Exs. A to A‑

9. He has stated that a legal notice under section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 was sent intimating in writing about the change of ownership and requesting him to pay the rent to the respondent. All these factors were taken into consideration by the Rent Controller and he has come to the conclusion that there exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant has failed to pay or tender the rent. On the other issues the entire evidence of the respondent has gone unchallenged and according to law in these circumstances there is no reason to discard b his evidence. The Rent Controller has rightly allowed the rent application of the respondent on the ground of default, personal bona fide requirement and re‑construction, Appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T/A‑430/K Appeal dismissed.