1993 PLP 1809 (MLD)

Rana Muhammad Ahmed Khan for Appellant. This F.RA. is directed against the order of Rent Controller, Thatta dated 31‑5‑1992.

2. The respondent had filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 alleging that he is the owner of premises bearing No.87 which is situated in Gharo Town. The appellant was his tenant in a garage of the said premises @ Rs.100 per month. The appellant committed default in payment of rent from 1‑8‑1984. The garage was also required by the respondent for his personal bona fide use. Hence he prayed for ejectment.

3. The appellant contested the matter and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. He asserted that he had purchased the garage from Haji Aziz Khan, father of the appellant for Rs.2,000 in 1974 under an Agreement of Sale. The learned Controller took up the issue as to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and decided it in the affirmative. 4. 1 have heard Mr. Rana Muhammad Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, and carefully gone through the R & Ps of the case. The respondent had proved his ownership of the house including the disputed premises which was the garage, by producing the P.T.D. issued by the Settlement Authorities transferring premises No.87 in favour of his father and the extract from Deh Form 11 of Gharo Town, according to which property was mutated in his favour on the death of his father Aziz Ahmed Khan. He has led his own evidence on oath and that of witnesses Ali Bux, Abdul Hasan, Muhammad Habib Khan Warsi and Muhammad Hussain to prove that he had given the said garage on rent to the appellant. The witnesses were cross‑examined by the counsel for the appellant but he could not discredit them. In rebuttal the appellant produced an Agreement of Sale alleged to have been executed by the father of the respondent m his favour on 4‑6‑1974. Thu appellant did not examine the attesting witnesses of the document. The document does not appear to be bona fide or a genuine document. According to the Affidavit of Opponent it was executed on 4‑6‑1974, while the date of attestation is 18‑6‑1974. The document is unregistered, and therefore, does not create any right or interest. Even if it is treated as an Agreement of Sale, then also the silence of the appellant for all these 18 years and his failure to take any step for getting it registered or specifically enforced, shows that it is not a genuine document. Mr. Rana Muhammad Ahmed Khan has alleged that in Gharo Town generally people do not get such documents registered. The allegation is not correct. The appellant did not take care to get his name mutated in Deh Form

11. In view of all these circumstances, I do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned trial Court. The F.RA. is, therefore, dismissed in limine. The appellant is, however, allowed 30 days time to vacate the premises. H.B.T./J‑145/K . Appeal dismissed.