1984 PLP 1337 (CLC)

(a) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) ‑‑S. 16(2)‑Striking off defence‑Tenant claiming possession of pre mises as bona-fide purchaser and denying relationship of landlord and tenant and filing two applications one for sending agreement for sale to handwriting expert for his opinion about signatures of landlord and other application for calling attesting witness after close of evidence on preliminary issue of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant which was decided by Rent Controller in favour of landlord when tenant examined himself on said issue and evidence thereon closed by counsel appearing on behalf of tenant‑No explanation offered for not filing same before evidence had been closed‑Rent Controller, held, committed no illegality by dismissing such applications.‑[Evidence]. (b) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑ ‑‑S. 16(2)‑Striking off defence‑Non‑compliance of tentative rent order‑Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant on ground that tenant was holding possession as bona fide purchaser on strength of sale agreement‑Landlady denying signature on agreement for sale and examining herself and her father in that behalf‑No other document provided and no notice given by tenant to landlord for finalization of sale‑deed‑No separate receipt about payment of advance mentioned in agreement available nor suit filed for specific performance of agreement‑Apart from tenant no other witnesses examined on behalf of tenant‑Burden of proving agreement of sale falling on shoulders of tenant not discharged by him‑Relation ship of landlord and tenant, held, established between parties , Ejectment order upheld. By this first rent appeal the appellant has challenged the' order, dated 23rd February, 1981 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Karachi, in Rent Case No. 2258 of 1976, striking off the defence of the appellant and ordering his ejectment from the premises in question. The rent case was filed before the Rent Controller on 14th May, 1976, on the ground of default and personal requirement. The written statement was filed by the appellant challenging the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller on the ground that there was a sale agreement, dated 24th July, 1975 between the parties where under the appellant had agreed to purchase the property for Rs. 13,000 and it was provided that the appellant on the execution of the said agreement ceases to hold the property as a tenant and till the finalisation of the sale‑deed will continue to remain in the premises as a bona fide purchaser in consideration of the advance of Rs. 3,000 paid to the respondent. It may be observed that according to the agreement the property in question was agreed to be sold for Rs. 13,

000. The sale‑agreement was denied by the respondent as a forged document. She denied her signatures on the document. A preliminary issue was raised about the existence of relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties. On this issue the respondent examined herself and her father. Both denied the agreement. Signatures on the agreement were also denied. The appellant examined himself on 14th March, 1979 and after the evidence, learned counsel who was appearing on behalf of the appellant, closed the evidence of the appellant on the preliminary issue. Thereafter, in May, 1979 two applications were filed by the appellant. One application was for sending the agreement to the handwriting expert for his opinion about the signatures alleged to have been appended on the agreement by the respondent and the other application was for calling Ghulam Hussain, an attesting witness of the agreement. These applications were rejected by the Rent Controller and accepting the evidence led on behalf of the respondent, the preliminary issue was decided in favour of the respondent by order, dated 18th February, 1980. Thereafter a tentative rent order was passed on 12th May, 1980. It is an admitted position that no rent had been deposited by the appellant pursuant to the tentative rent order. In this rent appeal, therefore, what is in effect being challenged is the order, dated 18th February, 1980 of the Rent Controller holding that there existed relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Anwar Tariq, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Munawar Ghani, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

2. It was first contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that full opportunity was not granted to the appellant to lead evidence and the two applications for sending the document for obtaining the opinion of the handwriting expert and for calling Ghulam Hussain as a witness had bee wrongly rejected by the Rent Controller I see no illegality having bee committed by the Rent Controller in dismissing the applications. Evidence on the preliminary issue was recorded by the Rent Controller in January, 1979 and the appellant examined himself on 14th March, 1979 on the preliminary issue and the same day learned counsel who was appearing on behalf of the appellant before the Rent Controller closed the side o the appellant on the preliminary issue. Miscellaneous applications which were dismissed by the Rent Controller were filed in May, 1979. The appellant was aware of his own case as the defence was taken in his written statement and there was no explanation for not filing these application earlier before the evidence had been closed. In the circumstances of the present case, I see no reason to set aside the orders rejecting the applications for leading further evidence or for sending the agreement for opinion of the handwriting expert.

3. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that even on the basis of the evidence on record, a wrong decision was taken by the learned Rent Controller, when he came to the conclusion that relationship of landlady and tenant existed between the parties. In this case admittedly the appellant was the tenant of the respondent but after the case had been filed in May, 1976, the plea was taken by the appellant in the written statement that there was an agreement in writing signed b the respondent, which agreement was denied by the respondent. The respondent and her father have denied the agreement and the signatures of the respondent on the said agreement. On behalf of the appellant only appellant gave evidence. There was no other document produced in support of the case of the appellant. No notice was given by the appellant to the respondent for finalization of the sale‑deed ; there was no separate receipt about payment of advance mentioned in the agreement ; no suit has been filed so far for specific performance of the agreement and apart from the appellant no other witnesses including the attesting witness have been examined on behalf of the appellant. As the appellant was relying upon the agreement, which was denied by the respondent, the burden was on the appellant and the same was not discharged. I find no infirmity in the order, dated 18th February, 1980 passed by the Rent Controller holding that relationship of land-lady and tenant existed between the parties.

4. F. R. A. No. 153 of 1981 is dismissed with costs. The appellant is, however, granted time till 30th June, 1983 to vacate the premises. M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.