Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
First Rent Appeal No. 607 of 1980, decided on 6th November, 1983.
‑‑ S. 15‑Ejectment application‑Tenant denying relationship of land. lord and tenant‑Tenant stating payment of rent to one E' but not knowing his residence and showing his inability to produce him‑‑Rent Controller giving finding on evidence that such relationship existed and passing tentative rent order‑Tenant not complying with that order-- Rent Controller striking off defence and passing ejectment order --Held : Reasonable view was taken by Rent Controller on basis of evidence on record and called for no interference in appeal.
Muhammad Siddiq Mazhari for Appellant.
Chowdhry Rashid Ahmed for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 6th November 1983.
This is a first rent appeal filed by the appellant/tenant challenging the order of ejectment dated 22‑5‑1980 allowing the Rent Case No. 2313 of 1978 filed by the respondent/landlord. In the written statement filed by the appellant, relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied and it was claimed that one Ehsan Ellahi was the landlord of the appellant and not respondent Mubarak Ali Khan. A preliminary issue was framed by the learned Rent Controller and after recording evidence, the preliminary issue was decided in favour of the respondent by order dated 20‑5‑1979 and it was held that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Thereafter a tentative rent order dated 16‑8‑1979 was passed by the learned Rent Controller. As no amount was deposited by the appellant pursuant to the tentative rent order, an application was filed by the respondent for striking off the defence of the appellant. By the impugned order dated 22‑5‑1980, the application of the respondent was granted, the defence of the appellant was struck off and his ejectment was ordered. The appellant has come in first rent appeal to this Court. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Siddiq Mazhari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Chowdhry Rashid Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The evidence on the preliminary issue consisted of respondent, Mubarak Ali Khan, and Bashir Ahmed, father of the appellant. According to the evidence of the respondent, the premises had been let out by him to the appellant and it was further deposed by him that the respondent used to send his son, Ahsan Ali Khan to collect rent from the appellant. He also produced in his evidence an "Iqrarnama" dated 23‑4‑1969 (Exh. A/2) executed by one S. S. Raza showing that the premises in question had been sold by him to Mst. Anwari Begum wife of respondent Mubarak Ali Khan. No objection was raised at the time this "Iqrarnama" was produced in evidence and there is no cross‑examination of the respondent on the point that Mst. Anwari Begum had acquired this property from S. S. Raza. The entire case of the appellant, as evident from the evidence of his father, is that he had taken the premises on rent from one Ehsan Ellahi. In his cross-examination the father of the appellant stated that he used to pay the rent to one Ehsan Ellahi, whose residence was not known to him. He further stated that be did not know whether Ehsan Ellahi was the son of Mubarak Ali Khan, the respondent in this case. To another question during cross‑examination, he stated that he could not produce Ehsan Ellahi.
3. The evidence of the respondent was believed by the learned Rent Controller, who also commented adversely on the evidence of Bashir Ahmed (father of the appellant) about Bashir Ahmed not knowing the residence of the so‑called Ehsan Elahi and his inability to produce that person in Court. A reasonable view was taken by the learned Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence on record and I have not been persuaded by the learned counsel for the appellant to interfere with the finding that the relationship of tenant and landlord existed between the parties. The finding of the Rent Controller is supported by the evidence on record.
5. As a result, I find no merit in this appeal, as there is an admitted non compliance with the tentative rent order. The defence of the appellant was rightly struck off by the Rent Controller. First Rent Appeal No. 607/80 is dismissed with costs. The appellant is, however, granted time till 29‑2‑1984 to vacate the premises.
M. B. A. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer