1. ' Petitioner Muhammad Umar has filed this Constitutional Petition against the judgment dated 22nd May, 2004 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi Central in 1st Rent Appeal No,109 of 2003 whereby the ejectment application filed by deceased Muhammad Yousaf Siddiqui and others (legal heirs) of deceased/owner Haji Muhammad Sultan Siddiqui against the petitioner/tenant bearing No,91 of 2002 was allowed (whereby order dated 28-5-2003 passed by IVth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi Central, was set aside by the Appellate Court), and petitioner stands evicted from the premises involved in the case.
2. ' Heard Mr. Sami Ahsan learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. M. Ikram Siddiqui, Advocate for respondents Nos.l(a) to 1(o); respondent No,2 viz. City District Government was also served with the process of this C.P. But none appeared.
3. ' At the very outset it may be stated that the predecessor-in-title of the respondents/landlords had filed earlier ejectment application against the tenant/petitioner herein on the ground of default and personal use of the property involved in this case, wherein defence of the tenant/petitioner was directed to be struck off, and that ultimately the tenant/petitioner filed proceedings before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan which were admitted as Civil Appeal No,923 of 1995 and ultimately the parties compromised in the earlier ejectment application before Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and the same was disposed off in the following terms vide order dated 6-10-1998, which reads as under:-- "This appeal by leave of this Court challenges the impugned judgment dated 28-8-1994 of the Sindh High Court dismissing First Rent Appeal filed by appellant/tenant.
4. ' Respondent No,6 Muhammad Irfan Siddiqui states that all the other respondents are his brothers and sisters and he has authority to settle this matter. On the previous date of hearing (3-7-1998) his brother Muhammad Ikram Siddiqui, respondent No,5, was present. This appeal is accordingly being disposed of by consent.
2. The appellant shall pay rent at the rate of Rs,7,000 (Rupees seven thousand) per month with effect from 1-10-1998. This rent will be paid monthly by 10th of each succeeding month for a period of 3 years and thereafter monthly rent will increase by 10% every year. In case of default in the payment of rent, the respondents shall have the right to take action against the appellant in accordance with law. In view of this consent judgment, respondent will not execute the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller, but respondents shall have the right to take action against the appellant in accordance with law if any cause of action arises in future. Civil Appeal No,923 of 1995 stands disposed of as above with no order as to costs."
5. ' It may further be mentioned that respondent herein have filed a copy of application under section 10(3) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 bearing No,875 of 2000 in the Court of learned 1st Rent Controller, Karachi Central, which was filed by tenant/petitioner Muhammad Umar Khan, wherein he had specifically admitted himself to be tenant of the applicants/respondents in. The shop premises bearing No,G-3/8 situated on ground floor, Super Market, Liaquatabad, Karachi at the monthly rent of Rs,7700 per month and also prayed in the said application that he may be allowed to deposit the monthly rent of the said premises in the Court of Rent Controller with effect from 1st October, 2000, and the Rent Controller, vide order dated 21st October, 2000, had allowed the said application in the terms as recorded in the said order:-- ' Thus, the petitioner prima facie is proved to be tenant of the respondent No, I in the said shop premises. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the original landlord of the said shop was leased out the same by the then Karachi Metropolitan Corporation for a period of 10 years, which has expired and the lease so granted in his favour has not been renewed by the successor in office of the KMC viz. City District Government and that the said shop now stands, leased out to the petitioner/tenant and therefore the relationship of landlord and tenant no more exists in between the parties.
6. ' In this regard suffice it to say that extension or otherwise of lease is a different matter whereas determination of lease is a different matter; the petitioner has no produced any document to arrive at a point conclusively that the respondents are not more the lessee/owners of the shop in dispute.
7. Even otherwise, as stated above, the respondent No,2 viz. The City District Government Karachi was served with the notice of this C.P. And even then none appeared from the City District Government, and have not filed any material to support the plea taken by the petitioner to the effect that the respondents are no more lessee/owners of the shop in dispute.
8. Even otherwise, it is by now a settled principle of law that once a party has accepted himself to be a tenant in the premises having been inducted therein by the landlord/applicant of the rent case, he stands estopped from challenging such a status of the applicant/landlord in the rent proceedings, until and unless he conclusively proves that ownership/lease hold rights in the disputed tenement stand finally determined and he/they are no more lessees/owners; as stated above, the petitioner has failed to file any document to arrive at a conclusion that the lease (said to have been granted to the respondents) stands finally determined by the City District Government Karachi and therefore such a plea raised by the petitioner does not carry any force therein.
9. ' In Shaukat and another v. Mst. Shahnaz Rafiq 2000 SCM R 1918, Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe at page 1921 as under:-- ' to the last contention, we find from the record that though the petitioners had taken the plea that Mst. Murad Begum happened to be the owner of the premises the only assertion made was that she had filed a suit for declaration, specific performance and permanent injunction against the respondent which was sub judice before a Court of law. This ground hardly entitles the petitioners to deny relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In any event, petitioners having admitted to be the tenants of the premises and depositing rent at the rate of Rs,250 per month in the office of the Rent Controller may be considered as the tenants of the premises which are owned and possessed by the respondent. Indeed, the petitioners did not question the right, title and, ownership of the respondent in respect of the tenements. In our view the issue raised by Mst.
10. Murad Begum before a Civil Court did not disentitle the respondent from claiming the rent of the premises from the petitioners on the averments that they were tenants of the premises and that a notice of change of ownership in terms of section 18 of the Ordinance had been duly served on them. It is urged that Mst. Murad Begum acquired ownership of the premises from one Umar Din in pursuance of an agreement of sale which in our view does not prima facie confer any right on the petitioners to deny the title of the landlady. It was, therefore, not necessary in the circumstances to strike down an issue relating to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Orders for deposit of rent being proper and valid on the face of it, to our mind it was incumbent upon the petitioners to comply with the same without any reservation. These orders in face did not suffer from any legal infirmity or want of jurisdiction. In any event, these were provisional in nature and were subject to final and authoritative decision of the Rent Controller. Since petitioners disregarded the orders dated 2-4-1998 of the Rent Controller contumaciously and without any lawful justification, their defence was rightly struck off as held by the learned Rent Controller and upon appeals by the High Court."
11. ' Learned Appellate Court accepted the plea of the applicants/respondents to the effect that shop in dispute is required for their personal bona fide use as they want to run the business of their own therein; it is by now a settled principle of law that even if the landlord is proved to be owning any other property wherein he can easily run a business of his own, then also it is his prerogative to same is to be treated to be not maintainable, until and unless he is able to finally prove that other co-sharers do not intend to provide such a convenience to the applicant viz. One of the co-owners to use the property for his personal bonafides use; in the case in hand there is nothing on record to indicate that applicants/ respondents plea that the shop in question is needed by them for running their own business therein suffers from any such genuine desire or lacks of bonafides on their part.
12. 'For what has been stated above, present Constitutional petition does not merit any consideration and therefore vide a short order dated 7th September, 2004 it was dismissed in limine together with the listed applications; above are the reasons for the said short order.