2007 PLP 2540 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.

Through this constitutional petition, invoking constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgments passed by the respondents Nos.3 and 2 dated 22-9-2006 in F.R.A. No.31 of 2006 and dated 30-1-2006 in Rent Case No.354 of 2004, respectively.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present constitutional petition are that respondent No.1, claiming to be the landlady of House No.296, Sector 33-C, Korangi No.2, (hereinafter referred to as the 'said tenement') filed an ejectment application under section 15(2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance') bearing Rent Case No.354 of 2004 against the petitioner with the following prayers:- (a) Direct the Opponent to vacate the premises bearing No.296, Sector 33-C, Kornagi No.2, Karachi and to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the same to the applicant and may also direct him to clear all the rent and dues till handing over the possession of the premises. (b) Cost of the case may also be awarded. (c) Any other relief or relives, which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3. In the said ejectment application it was asserted by respondent No.1 that the petitioner paid her rent @ Rs.1200 per month till May, 2003 and upon his (petitioner's) failure to pay further rent respondent No.1 approached the Member Provincial Assembly PS-123, who called the petitioner where he admitted the claim of respondent No.1 and undertook to clear the arrears of Rs.2,800 and also promised to vacate the premises on 10-10-2003. It was the case of respondent No.1 in the ejectment application that since the petitioner failed to clear the dues upto November, 2003 amounting to Rs.7,200 for the period of six months, she filed Rent Case No.508 of 2003 before the IInd Rent Controller which, however, was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, hence she approached the concerned Court through Rent Case No.354 of 2004.

4. The petitioner filed his written statement wherein he denied the ownership of respondent No.1 asserting that the property was handed over to him by one Mst. Syeda after receiving Rs.80,000 as security deposit. However, no tenancy agreement was executed between the parties at that time. It was asserted in the written statement by the petitioner that in January, 2004 Mst. Syeda refused to accept the rent and demanded enhancement of rent from Rs.1,000 to Rs.2,500 per month, however upon refusal some gunda elements approached respondent No.1 and took his thumb-impression on blank paper, therefore he started depositing rent in M.R.C. No.21 of 2004. Finally, the petitioner denied having committed any default.

5. In view of the above pleadings, learned Rent Controller framed the following points: (a) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties'? (b) Whether the Opponent committed default in payment of rent? If yes, at what rate and from what period? (c) What should the order be?

6. The learned Rent Controller decided all the points in favour of respondent No.1 and directed the petitioner to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the premises, in question, to respondent No.1 holding that the petitioner had committed .default in payment of monthly rent, hence liable to be ejected from the rented premises.

7. Against such order the petitioner filed First Rent. Appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi East.

8. The petitioner has now challenged .the propriety and legality of the order of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Karachi East passed on 22-9-2006 and has prayed for its setting aside.

9. I have heard and considered the arguments, advanced by Mr. Attaullah Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf Of the petitioner and Mr. Zafaruddin Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, gone through the record and case-law, cited at the bar and am of the considered view that learned Appellate Court has rightly rejected the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order of the learned Ist Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi East allowing the Ejectment application of respondent No.1. Accordingly in my view, the order of the appellate Court i.e. IVth Additional District Judge Karachi East does not suffer from any infirmity, E illegality or material irregularity, which is the basic requirement for deciding the matter by this Court under its constitutional jurisdiction.

10. In view of what has been discussed above. I am not inclined to admit this constitutional petition for regular hearing, which is hereby dismissed in limine along with listed application. C.P. No.S-530 of 2006 stands disposed of. H.B.T./A-68/K Petition dismissed.