1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J. --- Through this Constitutional Petition, invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, the Petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the Judgments passed by Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, dated'22.09.2006 In F.R.A. No. 31/2006 and dated 30.01.2006 in Rent. Case No. 354/2004, respectively.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Constitutional Petition are that Respondent No. 1, claiming to be the landlady of House No. 296, Sector 33-C, Korarigi No. 2, (hereinafter referred to as the said tenement') filed an ejectment application under Section 15(2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as `the Ordinance') bearing Rent Case No. 354/2004 against the Petitioner, with the following prayers:---
(a) Direct the Opponent to vacate the premises bearing No. 296, Sector 33-C, Korangi No. 2, Karachi and to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the same to the applicant and may also direct him to clear all the rent and. Dues till handing over the possession of the. Premises.
(b) Cost of the case may also be awarded.
(c) Any other .Elief or relieves, which this Hon'ble. Court mai deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The Petitioner filed his written-statement wherein he denied the ownership of Respondent No. 1 asserting that the property was handed over to him by one Mst. Syeda after receiving Rs. 80,000/- as security deposit. However, no 'tenancy agreement was executed between the parties at that time. It was asserted in the written-statement by the Petitioner that in January 2004 Mst. Syeda refused to accept the rent and demanded enhancement of rent from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 2,500/- per month, however, upon refusal some gunda elements approached Respondent No. 1 and took his thumb-impression an blank paper, therefore, he started depositing rent in NRC No. 21/2004. Finally, the Petitioner denied having committed any default.
(1) Whether the reltaionship of landlord and tenant exists between tie parties?. (2) Whether the the ooponent committed default in payment of rents If yes, at what rate and from what period?
(3) What should the order be?
4. The learned Rent Controller decided all the points in favour of Respondent No. 1 and directed the Petitioner to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the premises, in question, to Respondent No. 1, hording that the Petitioner had committed default in payment of monthly rent, hence liable to be ejected from the rent premises.
5. Against such order the Petitioner filed First Rent Appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi East.
6. The Petitioner has now challenged the propriety and 'legality of the Order of the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi East passed on '22.09.2006 and has prayed for its setting aside.
7. I have heard and considered arguments, advanced by Mr. Attaullah Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, and Mr. Zafaruddin Khan, 'learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1, gone through the record and case-law, cited at the bar and am of the considered view that learned Appellate Court has rightly rejected the Appeal of the Petitioner filed against the order of the learned 1st Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi East allowing the Ejectment application of Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, in my view, the order of the Appellate Court i.e. IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi East does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or material irregularity, which is the basic requirement and deciding the matter by this Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction.
8. Constitutional Petition No. 8-530/2006 stands ,disposed o.