1986 PLP 1297 (MLD)

The admitted facts on the record are that under agreement made between the parties the applicant was put in possession of the 'demised premises by the respondent/ landlord as a tenant at monthly rent of Rs.350. It is also proved on record that the applicant. failed to pay rent for the period 1‑10‑1971 to 31st July, 1972 (ten onths) which amounted to Rs.3,500 for the recovery which the above suit was filed on 8‑8‑1974. The applicant filed his written statement wherein inter alia, it was pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties for the reason that the plot in question had been forfeited to the Government by order, dated 12‑6‑1967 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi and further in Hakimullah and another v . Fikree Development Corporation and another (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 60 of 1972)the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi passed order on 30th May, 1973 wherein it was held that the lease in favour of the plaintiff /respondent had become void. It was accordingly pleaded that the title of the plaintiff /respondent was under cloud. It is not necessary for the purposes of disposal of this case to refer to other pleas, suffice would it be to mention that in the suit the following issue was framed on which tfie parties went to trial. ISSUE "Is the suit amount due?"

2. The parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective pleas. The agreement of tenancy was produced and marked as Exh.8. The order of ejectment passed against the applicant was produced as Exh.13. Copies of the order of Deputy Commissioner, Karachi (Exh.14) as well as the order passed in appeal by the Member Board of Revenue (Exh.15) setting aside the earlier order of Deputy Commissioner, were also produced. The existence of the lease/sanad in favour of Mrs. Sher Bano was thus proved. In his evidence the applicant admitted to have executed the agreement of lease (Exh.8) in favour of the respondent. It was also admitted that the applicant was put in possession of the demised property by the respondent. The rate of rent and the amount due as arrears of rent were also admitted.

3. The only point urged before the learned trial Court and also before this Court is that the title of the plaintiff was in clouds because of the order of Vth Additional District Judge, passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.60 of 1972 and that of the Deputy Commissioner. However, it would be observed that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside by the Board of Revenue (Exh.15). ‑The observations made by the Vth Additional District Judge in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.60 of 1972 while disposing of an interlocutory application were tentative in nature not binding at the time of trial of the suit on merits. This position as to the effect of observations made in the aforementioned Miscellaneous Appeal was clarified by this Court in Messrs Fikree Development Corporation Ltd. and another v. Hakimullahl and others (Civil Revision Application No.222 of 1973).

4. In view of the above discussion the liability of tl applicant a a tenant to continue to pay rent to the respondent/the landlord who had put him in possession pursuant to the agreement of tenancy, could not be disputed. The applicant is estopped from challenging the title of his landlord. No other point was urged in support of the petition.

5. For the reasons discussed above being of the opinion that this Revision Application is without any merit, I dismiss the same. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.