1984 PLP 2573 (CLC)

‑‑‑S.14‑‑Ejectment on ground of personal requirement by widow‑‑Neither landlady nor any of her relations giving evidence that landlady was widow‑ Her attorney deposing that he had no personal knowledge whether her husband was dead or alive‑‑Unexplained discrepancy in name of her husband in General Power of Attorney and Special Power of Attorney‑‑Held: Burden of proof that she was widow, was on landlady which was not discharged‑‑No case under S.14 of Ordinance made out by landlady. Rent Case No. 5575/81 was filed by the respondent/landlady through her attorney Aziz‑ur‑Rehman Khokhar for the ejectment of the appellant from the premises in question under section 14 of the 1979 Rent Ordinance. In the ejectment application the respondent was described as "Mst. Rabia daughter of Daulat Khan, wife of late Jewan Bukhsh", and the ejectment application was filed on 21st December, 1981 on the ground that the respondent was a widow and she required the premises for her own use. The ejectment application was opposed by the opponent who filed a written statement in which it was inter alia pleaded that the appellant had no persons knowledge whether respondent was a widow or not and the respondent was called upon to prove the same. It is further pleaded that a case under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance had been pending since 1980 being Rent Case No.4230/80 on the same facts. It is now stated by both the learned counsel that the earlier ejectment application filed under section 15 of the 1979 Rent Ordinance has been dismissed in default. On behalf of the respondent, Aziz‑ur‑Rehman Khokhar, her attorney, gave evidence. Appellant gave evidence himself in opposing the ejectment application. By order dated 24th May, 1983 of the Rent Controller the ejectment application under section 14 has been allowed, which order is challenged in this First Rent Appeal. I have heard Mr. Munawwar Abbas, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Malik, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. It was first conteneded by Mr.Munawwar Abbas that the burden ofproving that the respondent was a widow was on the respondent/landlady and this burden was not discharged. Neither the respondent nor any of her relatives gave evidence before the Rent Controller. Only her attorney. Aziz‑ur‑Rehman Khokhar gave evidence. On a question from the Court, learned counsel for the respondent informed that the attorney is not related to the respondent/landlady. In cross‑examination of the attorney of the landlady, a question was put to him whether the attorney was aware that the husband of the respondent was alive or not and he replied as follow:‑ "I have no personal knowledge whether applicant's husband is dead or not." Then in the registered irrevocable general power of attorney executed by the landlady in favour of Aziz‑ur‑Rehman Khokhar shows the landlady to be the wife of late Jejwan Bukhsh whereas the lease deed executed by the K.D.A. in favour of Mst. Rabia Bibi (landlady) in respect of the property in question shows the landlady to be the wife of Doulat Khan. There is also an earlier special power of attorney given by the landlady in favour of Aziz‑ur‑Rehman Khokhar and in this special power of attorney she is shown as the widow of Daulat Khan. In the ejectment application Mst. Rabia Bibi is shown as the wife of late Jewan Bukhsh.

3. In my view the burden of proving that the landlady wag a widow ha dl not been discharged by the respondent. As observed earlier, neither the respondent landlady gave evidence nor any of her relations appeared in the witness‑box and the attorney stated in his evidence that he had no personal knowledge whether the husband of the respondent was dead or not. This coupled with the discrepancy about the name of the husband of the respondent, which discrepancy has not been explained in the evidence, leads me to the conclusion that the respondent had not made out a case under section 1.4 of the 1979 Rent Ordinance. In my view as the burden of proving that the respondent was a widow had not been discharged by the respondent through the evidence of her attorney Aziz‑ur‑Rehman Khokhar, the application under section 14 ought to have been dismissed by the Rent Controller. As a result F.R.A. No.527/83 is allowed, the order dated 24th May, 1983 of the Rent Controller is set aside and the Ejectment Application No.5575/81 filed by the respondent is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. M.B.A. Appeal accepted.