Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.477 of 1985, decided on 24th May, 1987.

---Ss.2(f)(j), 15 & 21--Relationship of landlord and tenant--Existence of--Proof--Nothing on record found to suggest that respondent was ever inducted as tenant in disputed premises either by appellants or by their predecessor-in-interest--No cogent evidence available on record to show that respondent had ever paid any rent in respect of premises in dispute either to appellants or to their predecessor-in- interest--Finding of Rent Controller that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between parties was upheld in appeal, being based on evidence on record.

G.H.Malik for Appellant.

Khuda Bux Omrani for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 30th March, 1987.

This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) is directed against the order dated 30th May 1985 passed by the XVIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby he dismissed the eviction application filed by the appellants.

The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the appellants filed eviction application No.2166 of 1982 against the respondent stating therein that they are the owners of plot situated at B-8, Additional Area, Block 'A', Sindhi Muslim Co-operative Housing Society, Karachi together with the building standing thereon. It is the case of the appellants that the respondent is the tenant of the appellants in respect of the said premises at the rate of Rs.250 per month. The appellants filed the above eviction application against the respondent on the ground that he committed default in payment of rent since 1st November, 1966 and also on the ground of personal requirement. The respondent filed the written statement wherein he contended that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the appellants are neither the owners of the disputed case property nor they are the landlords of the said property. The respondent also denied the allegations made in the application. The appellant No.1 filed her own affidavit-in-evidence besides affidavit-in-evidence of Abdul Ghaffar Khan but the latter could not be cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent filed his own affidavit-in-evidence in rebuttal. The witnesses of both the parties were cross-examined, by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

The Controller on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties decided issue No.1 in the negative and dismissed the eviction application vide order dated 30th Max, 1985 of the XVIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi.

The appellants being aggrieved against the said order dated 30-5-1985 of XVIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, have preferred this rent appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the R & P of the case with their assistance. The case of the appellants is that they are the landlords and owners of the premises in dispute and the respondent is the tenant of the appellants in respect of the said premises on monthly rent of Rs.250. The respondent denied in his written statement that the appellants are the owners of the plot in dispute and that the respondent is the tenant of the appellants in respect of the premises in dispute. The case of the respondent is that the aforesaid plot was originally allotted to late Mirza Hayat Baig predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in the year 1956 and on 27-8-1957 the late Mirza Hayat Baig entered into agreement of sale of the aforesaid plot measuring 674 square yards to the respondent in, the sum of Rs.1,000 and the said Mirza Hayat Baig received the entire consideration amount of Rs.1,000 and in part performance thereof he handed over the vacant and/or open possession of the said plot. The respondent made construction of the said bungalow which construction was completed in the, year 1959 and since then respondent alongwith his family has been residing in the said bungalow. It is the further case of the respondent that in the year 1966 the dispute arose between the late Mirza Hayat Baig and the respondent which was amicably settled by the intervention of the elders with the result the respondent was required to pay Rs.6,000. It was the further case of the respondent that in accordance with the said 'faisla' of elders, the respondent paid Rs.6,000 to the late Mirza Hayat Baig with the result that Mirza Hayat Baig made declaration on oath in the form of an affidavit dated 22-11-1966 in which the late Mirza Hayat Baig stated on solemn testimony that he had handed over peaceful possession to the respondent of the aforesaid plot with the verbal permission to construct the house thereon at his own cost. The appellant No.1 repeated the same facts in her affidavit-in- evidence. She produced some of the documents. I have perused the documents. The documents produced by the appellant do not show that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants inducted the respondent as his tenant in respect of the premises in dispute.

There is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that the respondent was inducted as a tenant in respect of the premises in dispute. There is no cogent evidence on record from which it can be inferred that the respondent had ever paid any rent in respect of the premises in dispute either to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant or to the appellants. I have also perused the order of the Controller. The learned counsel for the appellants is unable to point out any misreading in the order of the Controller. It seems that the order is in accordance with the evidence on record.

In the result I do not find any force in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

H.B.T./R-30/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.