1997 PLP 2727 (MLD)

The facts of the case are that appellant is a tenant of the respondent in respect of premises on the second floor of the building known as Noor Manzil, standing on the Plot No.R.B.6/46‑47, Hurmsjee Street, Gari Khata, Karachi since June, 1977 on a monthly rent of Rs.175. Ejectment of the appellant was sought on the ground of wilful default for not paying the rent from the month of January, 1993 till the filing of this rent case on 12‑4‑1993. Appellant has resisted the eviction proceedings and in his written statement has denied any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Therefore, respondent is not entitled to receive the rent nor appellant has committed any default and lastly that status of respondent is that of merely a Rent Collector on behalf of her brothers, namely, Zameer Ahmed, Saghir Ahmed and Gulzar Ahmed. That appellant has been depositing the rent by way of Miscellaneous Rent Case No. 125 of 1993 in the name of three owners namely, Zameer Ahmed, Saghir Ahmed and Gulzar Ahmed. Respondent Mst. Shaheen Akhtar had filed her affidavit‑in‑evidence and has also filed therewith rent receipts dated 7‑2‑1992 as marked 'A' and declaration of gift (Document) as marked ' B' by her brothers, who have surrendered their shares of property in favour of the respondent by way of gift. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. While respondent examined herself and her brother Zameer Ahmed while appellant examined himself in support of his case. Following issues were settled by the Rent Controller of the decision.

1. Whether the opponent is wilful default in payment of rent?

2. What should the order be? Upon assessment of the evidence and hearing of the learned counsel for the parties learned Rent Controller decided issue No. l relating to default in favour of the respondent Mst. Shaheen Akhtr (Rent Collector and on issue No.2 learned Rent Controller allowed the Application No.573 of 1993, directing the appellant to hand‑over the vacant possession of the premises within three months of this order. I have heard both the learned counsels and perused the record. At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Amir Malik has admitted that appellant is a tenant in the premises in question at the rate of Rs.175 per month but has denied that there exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as Mst. Shaheen Akhtar is not owner of the premises but merely a Rent Collector on behalf of the brothers, who are the owners of the premises. Mr. Amir Malik has contended that rent receipts, deposited in Court on 5‑7‑1993, show that receipts were issued on behalf of her brother Zameer Ahmed as landlord. Mr. A. Rasheed, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that respondent Mst. Shaheen Akthar in her evidence in the Trial Court had filed rent receipts dated 7‑2‑1992 as marked ' A' and declaration of gift (document) as marked ' B' that her brothers had gifted their shares in her favour and that she was cross‑examined on 12‑1‑1994. She also examined her brother Zameer Ahmed who filed his affidavit as Exh.A/2 and produced rent receipts as Exhs.A/3 to A/8. He also produced the declaration of gift document as Exh.A/9. From the evidence on record, I find that appellant is a tenant in the premises in question. at the rate of Rs.175 and that appellant has failed to pay the rent from the month of January, 1993 till the filing of the rent application in Trial Court on 12‑4‑1993. That Zameer Ahmed, brother of the respondent, in his deposition has said that on the death of his father he alongwith Gulzar Ahmed, Saghir Ahmed, Mst. Nasreen Akhtar and respondent Mst. Shaheen Akhter were left as his heirs in his property and on 5‑10‑1993 deponent and his two brothers namely, Gulzar Ahmed and Saghir Ahmed had surrendered their shares, through gift‑deed of the disputed premises, in the name of his both sisters i.e. Nasreen Akhter and Shaheen Akhtar in equal share. It is pertinent to note that respondent Mst. Shalleen Akhtar was co‑owner of the premises in question when she was receiving rent from the appellant on behalf of her three brothers whose names were printed on the rent receipts and from 5‑10‑1993 she alongwith her sister Nasreen Akhtar had become owners of the premises in question and she was not only Rent Collector but also a landlady. This witness had been cross‑examined by the appellant's side but his assertion had not been challenged. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that appellant had not paid the rent from January, 1993 till the filing of this Rent Application oil 12‑4‑1993 but according to para. 8 of the written statement the appellant/tenant started depositing the rent in Miscellaneous Rent Case No. 125 of 1993 in the name of Zameer Ahmed, Saghir Ahmed and Gulzar Ahmed from 5‑7‑1993, which proves that tenant has deliberately not deposited the rent of the premises from January, 1993 to March, 1993 within 60 days of the due date of the rent. In these circumstances, the appellant is a wilful defaulter in payment of rent: Not only this but for the reason that he had denied the existence of the relationship of the landlord and tenant, which stands provided, in view of the above discussion, the consequent order is that the appellant is liable to be ejected forthwith. Accordingly, I dismiss this appeal with costs but allow 60 days time to the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent. H.B.T./M‑87/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.