1998 PLP 415 (SCMR)

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.

Respondent Habibur Rehman is landlord and claims that petitioner Omer Saeed is his tenant of shop No.9 situated in Block No. 11, Tarachand Road, Keamari, on monthly rent of Rs.100 minus electricity, water and conservancy charges. (Hereafter the parties will be referred as landlord and tenant). Landlord filed ejectment case on the ground of default in the payment of rent since July, 1985. Tenant filed written statement and denied relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and asserted that he was not in occupation of shop No.9 but occupied a shop over a plot which belonged to K.P.T. and was transferred to Babul Islam Co-operative Housing Society. He was running tailoring shop in that place for the last 42 years and was in possession in his own right. Two main issues were framed regarding relationship and default. After consideration of evidence produced by the parties, learned Rent appeal by setting aside the impugned order and granted ejectment.

2. Ms. Wajahat Niaz, advocate requested this Court for permission to appear on behalf of the petitioner to assist the Court which was granted. She submitted that evidence was not properly evaluated by the High Court and there was misreading. Tenant has denied relationship and is not in occupation of shop No.9 which is claimed by the landlord, who has not pro u d satisfactory evidence in support of leis claim. Record shows that in evidence landlord has examined himself and produced a large number of documents. According to him property in question belonged to Hindu Khan Chand Tulsidas who sold the same vide sale agreement dated 27-9-1947 to Syed Abaz s/o Muzaffar Khan. Landlord first acquired tenancy rights in the said property from Syed Abaz s/o Muzaffar Khan vide agreement dated 27-1-1951. Landlord also acquired tenancy rights in respect of adjoining quarter No. 153 from K.P.T. In the meantime Babul Islam Co-operative Housing Society was formed and acquired tenancy of the entire area of both sides of Tarachand Road from K.P.T. Landlord purchased quarter No. 153 and shop No.9 from the Society and became absolute owner.

3. Landlord has further stated in his affidavit that shop No.9 and adjoining quarter No. 153 and 10 other quarters in the same area were divided by open gutter line with the result that larger portion came on the left side and smaller portion on the right side of the gutter line. Landlord constructed four shops on the larger portion and one shop on the smaller portion. Shop on the smaller portion was let out to the tenant in the year 1953 at the rent of Rs.25 per month, which was subsequently increased to Rs.100. While landlord was in custody in connection with a criminal case, tenant attempted to alter the structure and in that connection matter came before Jirga and it was decided that tenant may carry o<

4. The case of the landlord is supported by three other witnesses. Hafizur Rehman, brother of landlord, filed his affidavit and stated therein that tenant paid rent of Rs.25 per month to the landlord which was increased to Rs.100 in the year 1977 when his brother was in custody and in that connection there were proceedings before Jirga as well. Maqbool Shah is another witness, who deposed that he was also tenant in one of the shops of the landlord and used to collect rent from other tenants including petitioners. Omer Saeed for the landlord. Number of shops of this witness is ten which is opposite the shop of the petitioner/tenant. Ghulam Nabi is third witness, who is also tenant of the landlord and has testified that like all others, petitioner is also tenant of the landlord. There is nothing adverse in the cross-examination of these witnesses to suggest that they have spoken lies and falsely deposed on oath that petitioner is tenant of the landlord.

5. On the other hand, case of the tenant is that he has simply denied the relationship and has claimed that he is not occupant of portion of shop No.9 as it was previously described. Apart from bare denial, tenant has not produced any evidence or material to show that he is in occupation of different accommodation and in what capacity. Neither he claims title to the premises in his occupation nor says that he paid rent to K.P.T. or any other owner. Production of Photo stat copy of electric bill does not show that he is owner of the premises in respect of which the bill has been sent to him. Petitioner/tenant has produced no witness in support of claim and, in fact, his claim is vague in nature. Landlord has fully explained the history and how shop was previously described as shop No.9 which was, subsequently, divided into other small shops one of which was let out to the petitioner. Evidence produced by the landlord is better in quality and quantity and proves his claim and is rightly evaluated by the High Court giving finding in favour of the landlord.

6. We are unable to find any flaw or legal infirmity in the judgment of the High Court to which exception cannot be taken, hence, leave is refused and this petition is dismissed which has no merits. Six months are allowed to vacate demised shop. A.A./O-3/S Leave refused.