1988 PLP 1599 (MLD)

This First Rent Appeal under Section 24 of Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, has been filed by appellant Naseem Gul whereby he has challenged the order dated 9th February; 1985, of Additional Controller of Rents Clifton Cantonment, Karachi by which he has been directed to vacate the disputed premises and hand over the possession to the respondent. The application under section 17(2;(i)(4)(a)(i) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred an Act) was filed by Rohul Amin on the ground of default in payment of rent for 74 months from 10‑2‑1974 to 9‑4 1980 at the rate of Rs.45 per month amounting to Rs.3,

330. The other ground taken in the rent application is that of personal requirement. The written statement was filed in which appellant stated that he is owner of the premises and appellant should approach Civil Court about the title as such rent application is not maintainable. In para 7 of the written statement appellant stated that respondent had handed over the possession to appellant and he had gone out side of Karachi. When appellant was out of Karachi for one month, the respondent in his absence again took illegal possession of the premises and appellant instituted 145, Cr.P.C. proceedings against the respondent in which respondent could not establish his title and was directed to approach Civil Court. The Rent Controller on the pleadings of the parties framed one preliminary issue as under:‑ "Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties." Both the parties produced one witness for their side each' I have heard Mr.Umer Farooq Khan, Advocate for the appellant. It is argued that there is no relationship between the appellant and the respondent as appellant is owner, therefore, question of default does not arise. It is argued that in 145, Cr.P.C. proceedings it has been admitted by the respondent that appellant is not a tenant. In support of the case Mr.Umer Farooq Khan cited N L R 1983 page

673. MrAmir Malik, Advocate, for the respondent, submitted that appellant is a defaulter and has not paid the rent for 74 months. it is argued that 145, Cr.P.C. proceedings have no bearing in rent case when appellant had admitted to have paid the rent for two months. Rohul Amin, respondent in his evidence stated that appellant is a tenant from 10‑12‑1973 at the rate of Rs.45 per month. He paid rent for two months only, thereafter he stopped the same and has failed to pay the rent for 8 years and 11 months from 10‑2‑1974 to 10‑1‑1983. He has stated that neither the rent was sent by money order nor appellant deposited in the Court. There was a dispute for which he reported the matter to police. The respondent filed 145, Cr.P.C. proceedings in the Court of S.D.M.South, where case proceeded for 4 years arid he was directed to move the Civil Court. He has produced the documents of those cases. He has stated that this house was never sold to the appellant. He has also stated that he requires the house for personal bona fide requirements. In cross‑examination he has stated that there is no written agreement and there is no receipt of the rent with him. Appellant Naseem Gul in his evidence stated that he is not tenant of the respondent and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. He has stated that respondent previously filed a case in the Court of AC/MIC, Civil Lines/Clifton against him and his wife and further proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. He has stated that SDM dismissed the case of the respondent. The appellant filed written statement in the Court of Assistant Commissioner and certified copy has been produced as Exs.A‑2 and A‑3 and depositions of two witnesses of the appellant as Exs. A‑5 and A‑

6. In these documents appellant admitted the tenancy and afterwards stated that he purchased disputed premises from his father for Rs.2,000. 'this plea was not taken in the written statement or in his evidence. The appellant has nowhere stated in both the documents about the title of the property nor produced any document in support to show that he is owner. The Rent Controller has rightly framed this issue and recorded the evidence of the parties. I am also of the view that their exists relationship between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant has failed to pay the rent and he is a defaulter. I, therefore, hold that Judgment of the Additional Rent Controller is well‑reasoned and is based on evidence as well of legal points. His order calls for no interference. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./N‑107/K Appeal dismissed.