Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.120 of 1984, decided on 11th January, 1987.

---Ss.2 (f) (j), 15 & 21 (1)--Relationship of landlord and tenant- Proof--Mere ownership of a disputed property, held, would not be enough to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties--What was necessary to prove such relationship between appellant and respondents was that respondents were tenants of appellant irrespective of fact whether respondents were joint owner of disputed property or not--In absence of any agreement of tenancy and any receipt of rent ever issued by appellant to respondents, finding of Rent Controller that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between parties being in accordance with evidence on record was unexceptionable in circumstances.

Ch. Rasheed Ahmed for Appellant.

Khuda Bux Omrani for Respondents.

Date of hearing; 30th November, 1986.

This first rent appeal is directed against the order dated 12-11-1983, passed by the learned XIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi whereby he dismissed the eviction application filed by the Appellant.

The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the appellant filed an Eviction Application No. 1774 of 1975 against the respondent on the ground of default and personal requirement. The respondent filed written statement. The respondent resisted the eviction application on the ground that there existed no relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties.

On the pleadings of the parties the learned Controller framed the following issue:-

"1. Whether there do not exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties."

The appellant besides herself examined Abdul Wali Khan, Ghulam Hussain, Muhammad Ayub Khan, Afaqur Rehman, S. Karar Ali. The respondent No. 2 examined himself besides Nadri Begum.

The learned Controller after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties and taking into consideration the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties; dismissed the eviction application vide order dated 12-11-1983 and held that there existed no relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties.

I have heard the learned counsel for the-parties perused the R&P and gone through the impugned order.

The case as revealed in the eviction application is that her husband after securing allotment of Plot No.152, situated in Block B of Federal 'B' Area, Karachi from Messrs Public Construction Company, constructed a house thereon from his resources. The appellant's husband gifted the house in dispute to the appellant. The appellant served notice under section 13-A of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Repealed Ordinance) upon the respondent whereby they were called upon to pay the arrears of rent and future rent to her. The respondents sent a evasive reply. The appellant filed eviction application on the ground of default and personal requirement. The respondents resisted the application and -took the plea that they had never been tenants either of the husband of the appellant or of the appellant. They stated that the husband of the appellant is the elder brother of the respondent No. 1, and before the marriage of the appellant they (respondents) and the husband of the appellant were living in the house since 1963 and the disputed house was jointly purchased by S. Karar Ali husband of the appellant and the respondent No.1. The case as set out in the written statement is that since S. Karar Ali was the elder brother of the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 allowed him to obtain the disputed house in his name for convenience purposes and on the assurance given by the said S. Karar Ali that he would not betray the respondent No.1 The further case of the respondent No.1 is that the respondent No.1 was the co-owner of disputed "rouse alongwith the said S. Karar Ali and as such he is entitled to half ownership of the disputed house and is also entitled to live in the half portion of the said house in his own right and there has been no relationship of landlady and tenants between the parties at any time.

I am of the humble view that mere ownership of the appellant of the property in dispute was not enough what was necessary to be proved was that the respondents have been tenants of the appellant irrespective of the fact whether the respondent No.1 was the joint owner or not. This has not even been attempted in the present case. It is an admitted position that the respondents were residing alongwith the husband of the appellant prior to her marriage. It is also an admitted position that after one year of her marriage she and her husband shifted from the disputed house. It is also an admitted position that her husband and she have been occupying the part of the disputed house. Neither any agreement of tenancy has beer, produced, nor ant receipts issued by the appellant or her husband to the respondents has been produced to show that such a relationship between the appellant, who is owner of the property was created. The appellant has not placed any material on the record to establish relationship of the landlady and the tenants between the parties it this case and version of the respondents that the respondent No. 1 has never been a tenant either of S. Karar Ali or the present appellant remains debatable. In this situation, the learned Controller's finding that there existed no relationship of the landlady and the tenants between the parties is in accord with the evidence.

For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

H.B.T/K-5/K Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.