MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI, J.--- Present petition assails the concurrent decisions passed by Vth Rent Controller, Karachi Central in Rent Case No,47 of 2003 on 30-4-2005 and the appellate authority/Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi Central in F.R.A. No,103 of 2005 on 16-2-2006 whereby the eviction of the petitioner was ordered from House No,B-221, Block "C" North Nazimabad, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as "the premises" or "the demised premises").
2. The facts are that the petitioner was inducted in the premises as tenant by its previous owner Mirza Abdul Haque through his attorney Mubarak Alam in November, 1990. In January, 2003 the said owner sold the premises to Syed Qasim Raza Razvi under registered deed. On 19-9-2003 the new owner sent a notice to the petitioner/tenant intimating him about the purchase of house by him in January, 2003 and required him to vacate the premises.
3. The tenant/petitioner replied the notice on 27-9-2003 refusing therein to recognize the new purchaser as his landlord alleging therein that the house had been dishonestly and fraudulently sold to him He further asserted in the reply that he himself wanted to purchase the house.
4. It is worth to be noted that prior to the service of the notice mentioned above the tenant had started depositing the rent through M.R.C. No,587/03 since July, 2003 in the name of Syed Wali Ahsan who, according to him had let out the premises and had been collecting the rent previously as landlord. In the MRC he (the tenant) alleged that Wali Ahsan had refused to receive the rent after June, 2003.
5. The new owner i,e, respondent No,1 then filed Rent Case No,47 of 2003 for eviction of the tenant/petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide requirement.
The petitioner/ tenant resisted the case denying the rent. He disputed the title of the new owner alleging the sale in his favour to be fraudulent. He also challenged the bona fides of the personal requirement.
6. The Rent Controller, after recording the evidence ordered the eviction of the petitioner on 30-4- 2005 accepting both of the grounds. F.R.A. No,103 of 2005 filed by the petitioner/tenant was dismissed by the appellate authority/IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi Central on 16-2-2006.
Both of the decisions have been attacked through present petition.
7. Arguing on behalf of the petitioner/tenant, Mr. Muhammad Aqil, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that so far the default is concerned firstly there was no rent agreement between the new owner and tenant, secondly the petitioner had been depositing the rent in Court through M.R.C. No,586 of 2003 since July, 2003. No matter if the deposit of the rent was being made in the name of Wali Ahsan as the fact remains that the tenant had been paying the rent. He also argued that the personal bona fide requirement has not been established and the evidence on the side of the respondent is not of such standard which could establish the bona fide personal requirement.
8. Mr. Ibadul Hassnain, representing the respondent No,1 has argued that the relationship between the purchaser and the tenant is created by statute and no agreement is necessary. In fact the notice under section 18 is also required only for the purpose of establishing the nonpayment of rent and not for the creation of relationship. Mr. Hussnain further contended that no doubt the deposit of rent was being made since July, 2003 but that cannot cure the default in payment of rent. Firstly after service of the notice the tenant was required to pay all the rent due since the month of purchase i,e, January, 2003 but he never bothered to deposit that rent anywhere; secondly, the deposit in the name of the previous owner was dishonest and contumacious just to bother the owner and deprive him of the benefits of the rent, therefore, it was not a valid tender or deposit of the rent. Touching the aspect of the bona fide requirement Mr. Hussnain contended that it has come in the evidence of the respondent/purchaser that he is living in a rented premises together with his family and wants to shift to his personal property and that evidence has rightly been appreciated by the learned two Courts below.
9. Contention of Mr. Ibadul Hassnain have much substance in them. The relationship of landlord/respondent has been established. Undisputed, the petitioner had occupied the premises as tenant of the previous owner. After purchase of the premises by the respondent No,1 he automatically became tenant of the purchaser under the statute. Moreover, the notice containing the intimation about the purchase of the premises by the respondent was also served upon him in September, 2003. It was expressly containing that the purchase was made by the new owner in January, 2003. Thus, the petitioner was liable to pay/tender him the rent due.
10. The petitioner himself does not claim to have deposited the rent in between January, 2003 to June, 2003 anywhere despite the notice dated 19-9-2003. That by itself is a default in payment of rent. Moreover the attitude of depositing the rent in the names of previous landlord despite the service of the notice was also deliberge and contumacious. The contents of the reply given to the notice served by the new owner are the evidence that the tenant had adopted a defiant attitude refusing to acknowledge the respondent as owner. Not only that but he also went to the extent of accusing him and the earlier owner of fraud. Thus, the deposit of the rent in the name of earlier landlord even after the service of the notice is nothing but a deliberate default.
11. Coming to the question of personal requirement the evidence on the side of new owner that he is staying in rented premises with his family and needs the premises for his personal use is convincing. It has not been shaken in cross-examination. The simple word on the side of the tenant that the need is not bona fide does not carry any weight specially when the fact that the new owner is staying in rented premises has not been rebutted.
12. In view of the above, the petition is absolutely meritless and the decisions assailed through it do not warrant interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. The same is dismissed at Katcha Peshi stage.