2002 PLP 957 (YLR)

The appellant examined himself and one Muhammad Saleem in support of his case. The learned Rent Controller struck down the issues as to the relationship: default and personal requirement. After holding existence of relationship covered under issue learned Rent Controller proceeded to decide default and personal requirement in favour of the respondent and through impugned order directed the appellant to vacate the subject premises within 30 days. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the tenancy, agreement is forged and. no relationship could be presumed on such documents. He further contended that learned Rent Controller did not record the evidence correctly and in fact, recorded admission of fact whereas denial was categorically made. Learned counsel for the respondent disputed such assertion and stated that the appellant had dishonestly denied the relationship and he has paid rent upto 1998 but later on he turned dishonest. It was argued that the demised premises is situated within boundary of the Labour Square, Korangi and no (sic) allowed entry and the respondent is allottee of the demised premises and respondent put the appellant- in‑possession thereof as tenant. Under circumstances appellant cannot be allowed to claim hostile title in respect thereof. It has come on record that the respondent is owner of the demised property as per Exh.A/1 (i.e. allotment order issued by the Sindh Workers Welfare Board Karachi that the appellant produced copy of the civil suit filed by the appellant against him in which in para 1 it was claimed that the subject property was given to him by the Labour Board. In counter -affidavit to the stay application filed by the appellant it was specifically pleaded that the appellant herein in his tenant, no rejoinder was filed subsequently the suit was disposed of on the statement of the appellant's counsel to the effect that the rent case has been filed against, the appellant and he has no intention to eject the appellant without due process of law. The witnesses of the respondent Muhammad Moosa is his affidavit‑in -evidence has supported the respondent, he admitted the execution of the tenancy agreement between the parties, which was signed by him as a witness. The appellant in his affidavit‑in -evidence claimed to be owner of the subject house and stated that he had applied for the regularization of the same. In a detail affidavit‑in‑evidence he attempted to show that there is long drawn litigation between the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to suggest that the ejectment proceedings are outcome and retaliation to such proceeding initiated by the appellant it was claimed that the plot in his possession is built on unauthorized plot and he had applied for the ............ In cross‑examination he admitted that within premises of the Labour Board Square, no one is allowed to reside or to construct or purchase any house/piece of land without permission of the Sindh Welfare Board. He also admitted that no permission letter/allotment order, was issued by the Sindh Workers Welfare Board in his favour. He further admitted in cross- examination "that this premises was constituted by me with the permission of the respondent". It was also admitted that the factum of payment of Rs.30,000 to the respondent as claimed by him in the rent proceeding was not raised in the Suit No. 1239 of 1999 filed him, though he has admitted to have execute the tenancy agreement in presence of witnesses, even if such admission on the basis of allegation made by the appellant in appeal is kept out of consideration then also, it has come on record that the appellant came into possession of the subject premises with the permission of the respondent. He himself has admitted in an earlier suit filed by him that he has been paying Rs.200 though, purportedly on account of a Gas connection, there is also admission on his part that no person can enter within the boundary of Labour Square without the permission of the Labour Board. Once it comes on record, that a person has been put in possession, by the landlord, later on, he cannot alter his character and claim hostile title against the person from whom he has received the possession. In the instant case, as is apparent from Exh.D/2 an application dated 3‑8‑1998 addressed to Director Welfare Board Government of Sindh wherein it has been specifically mentioned by the appellant as under:- What has been reproduced above is more than sufficient to suggest that the demised premises was constructed over the plot of land which belong to the respondent and appellant came into possession thereof through respondent herein, though ‑the appellant claimed to have paid Rs.30,000 as a consideration for the subject premises, but such plea has been raised in defence to ejectment case, same is even more doubtful particularly, when no such plea find mention either, in the suit nor in the Constitutional petition that was filed by the appellant himself, nor any evidence was produced to substantial such claim.. Under the

by introducing the definition of a tenant and any person who is bound to pay rent is also included with the folds of tenant. I see no reason to upset the finding of learned Rent. Controller on the issue of relationship which was held to exist. It is settled position in law that when a person denies title of landlord and such relation is held to exist, then such person forfeits his tenancy. Under circumstances I have no hesitation to hold that, the appellant has not paid rent as claimed in the ejectment application‑ The issue of personal requirements was not contested by the appellant therefore, no exception to the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller can be taken. Above are the reasons for the short order whereby the appeal was dismissed on 16‑3‑2001 and the appellant was granted six months' time to vacate the demised premises. H.B.T./S‑213/K Appeal dismissed.