1999 PLP 1233 (CLC)

2. Briefly stated the background of the matter is as follows:‑

3. The respondent sought ejectment of the appellant from apartment No.15‑A, ‑Article 80, IIIrd floor (Plot No.25‑B) Block‑B Sindhi Muslim Housing Society, Karachi which is in occupation of the appellant at monthly rent of Rs.5,000 per month excluding gas, electricity, telephone, water conservancy, services of amenities charges/contributions etc. with effect from 15‑5‑1994. The alleged handwritten agreement between the parties was executed on 10‑5‑1994. The ejectment was sought by the respondent on the ground of default in payment of rent. According to respondent as per agreement the appellant had agreed to pay Rs.90,000 towards 10 months' advance rent (50,000 plus 40,000 security deposit) but he paid only Rs.25,000 at the time of signing the agreement with promise to pay the balance, payment within few days but he failed to make further payments. However, when processed further the appellant issued a backdated cheque in sum of Rs.25,000 in the name of applicants' Manager Jamil Ahmed Alvi, but this clause was bounced due to non‑availability of any amount in the opponent's account.

4. The appellant filed his written statement wherein he denied the alleged default and also took up a preliminary objection regarding relationship of landlord. and tenant between the parties. He denied existence of any written tenancy agreement. The appellant also claimed that the rate of rent is Rs.1,000 and not Rs.5,000 per month. Furthermore, he regularly paid rent to his landlord Jamil Ahmed Alvi who collected rent from him upto December, 1995 in advance.

5. The learned Rent Controller passed tentative rent order on 20‑3‑1997 which was not complied with by the appellant. Therefore, application under section 16(2) of Ordinance XVII of 1979 was submitted by the respondent. The learned Rent Controller obtained report from the Nazir which indicated that no rent was deposited. Accordingly, after hearing both the parties the learned Rent Controller struck off defence of the appellant and the appellant was ordered to vacate the premises with thirty days.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the appellant is tenant of Jamil Ahmed Alvi and not of the respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent in reply referred to para. No.(ii) of the written statement wherein the appellant stated as follows:‑‑ "That contents of para. No.2 as framed are denied. The agreement executed could not be got enforced/acted upon whereby the legal repercussion as pleaded are denied. "

8. After perusal of the record find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. There is absolutely no doubt that respondent is owner/landlord of the demised premises and, therefore, he has every right to demand and collect rent from the appellant as per agreement between the parties. Only one payment of Rs.25,000 was made and that too by cheque in the name of Jamil Ahmad Alvi, the manager of the respondent and that cheque was also dishonoured. The appellant was required to comply with the tentative rent order but he failed to give any cogent reason for its non‑compliance. While passing the tentative rent order the learned Rent Controller took into consideration the vital aspect of relationship of landlord and tenant and came to the following conclusion:‑‑ "I have considered the arguments advanced by the parties and also perused the record the applicant is landlord/owner of the demised premises, the opponent is also tenant of the same property. Rent agreement is produced in original which shows, that the rate of rent is Rs.5,000 p.m. The opponent states than one Jamil Ahmed Alvi is his landlord and Jamil Ahmed Alvi in his affidavit‑in‑evidence has clearly stated that he is only Manager of applicant. The tenure of tenancy is the same as prescribed in agreement. While deciding an application under section 16(1); Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, only tentative order is to be passed any findings may effect either of the party. Under the circumstances, I direct the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.5,000 p.m. from 16‑1‑1994 within 30 days from this order and future monthly rent at the rate of Rs.5,000 p.m. on or before 10th of every calendar month. In respect of telephone bills the same is not coming under the definition of arrears of rent. The application under section 16(1), Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is disposed of accordingly there is no order as to costs."

9. In view of the above conclusion in my humble view there was no need to frame a separate issue and the tentative rent order being just and proper ought 8 to have been complied with. Therefore, the impugned order which resulted in striking off defence of appellant calls for no interference. The judgment reported as Dr. Arshad Kamal Khan v, Ms. Khalid Kamal Khan and another 1993 SCMR 1360 supports the contention of learned counsel for the respondent. The appeal having no merits is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent/ landlord, with sixty (60) days but this would be subject to payment of rent regularly according to law. H.B.T./F‑47/K Appeal dismissed