1985 PLP 518 (MLD)

This order will govern the disposal of above noted two appeals. F.R.A. No.920 of 1983 has been filed by Jehangir and others who were impleaded as respondents in the ejectment Application No.5022 of 1978 filed by the respondent landlord on the grounds of default, damages and subletting. F.R.A. No.955 of 1983 is filed by one Muhammad Atiq who claims himself to be the real tenant of the shops in dispute.'

2. Rent Case No.5022/78 was instituted by the respondent Jamil Ahmed, on the allegation that his tenant Jehangir has sublet the premises to Anis Ahmed and Shareen Khan and that he also defaulted in payment of rent. Shareen Khan in his written statement filed before the Rent Controller admitted the allegation of subletting. and supported the application whereas Anis Ahmed and Jehangir contested the application on merits. Jehangir in his written statement denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and asserted that the real tenant of the shop is one Muhammad Atiq who is his brother-in-law and that he was only looking after the shop on account of illness of Muhammad Atiq. The Rent Controller framed the preliminary issue and having found it in the affirmative did not proceed further with the case and ordered ejectment of Jehangir. Jehangir and Muhammad Anis, have accordingly preferred one of the abovementioned appeals challenging the order of Rent Controller and alongwith them Muhammad Atiq who claims to be the real tenant of the premises has also challenged the order of Rent Controller. In F.R.A. No.955 of 1983 Muhammad Atiq filed an application for further enquiry under section 21(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and alongwith that he also filed an application for production of additional evidence which is mentioned in the list annexed with the application. One of the documents which was sought to be produced in this appeal is a book containing receipts in respect of the shop in dispute. These receipts are allegedly in the handwriting of Muhammad Atiq and they were said to have been signed either by Nawab Mohiuddin or Zaki Muhammad who are the care-takers and brother respectively of the real owner Muhammad Jamil. During the course of hearing of the appeal I directed Nawab Mohiuddin to appear in Court and in response to that direction he appeared in Court on 27-2-1885 and after going through the receipts contained in the note book and the documents which are mentioned as Exhs.8(1) to (8)(1) he admitted that all these receipts and the documents shown to him in Court were either signed by him or by his brother Zaki Muhammad. These receipts which have been admitted by Nawab Mohiuddin are neither in the name of Muhammad Atiq nor Jehangir but they stand in the name of Sind General Stores. Learned counsel for Muhammad Atiq also produced alongwith list of documents the original licence to run the Ration Shop alleged to have been granted in the year 1974 which is shown to have been issued in the name of Muhammad Atiq in respect of these shops. As some of the documents sought to be produced in l appeal are admitted to have been signed by the care-takers of the real owner I feel that this case eminently calls for further enquiry both on the issue of default as well as on the issue of subletting which was not at all decided by the trial Court. It is also necessary in the circumstances of present case that Muhammad Atiq who claims himself to be the real tenant of the shop should be allowed an opportunity to appear and contest the application before the Rent Controller as (te was not originally impleaded as respondent in the ejectment case. I accordingly accept both these appeal, set aside the order of the Rent Controller and direct that Muhammad Atiq will be impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the ejectment application and he will be allowed opportunity to defend the case alongwith other respondents in the case. The parties will be at liberty to produce documents which were sought to be produced in this appeal before the Rent Controller and after recording evidence afresh in the case which may be offered by the parties, the Rent Controller will decide the issues of default and subletting afresh in the light of that evidence. There will be no order as to costs. Since the original application was instituted in the year 1978, I further direct the Rent Controller to decide the case within six months from the date of receipt of R & P. H . B . T .???????? Appeal accepted.