1. ' This is a second appeal against judgment of Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi in Rent Case No, 55/76 dated 16-7-1976 where appeal was accepted and it was held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the present appellant and Dunya Gul. Additional District Judge set aside the finding of the Controller and Civil Judge who had held that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties.
2. ' On 23rd September, 1969 appellant Qassam had filed ejectment proceeding against the respondent claiming that he had rented out the premises in question Bearing No, B-III-88, Queens Road, Karachi originally consisting of two tenements to the appellant at Rs, 50 per month in March, 1963 and rent had been paid up to February, 1964. In February 1964, the respondent alleged to have sought permission for raising some temporary construction on the understanding that amounts spent on construction would be adjusted towards rent. The applicant further stated that the respondent/opponent had converted the two tenaments into one without his permission and although rent out of cost of construction was adjusted up to February, 1966 but he refused to pay any rent thereafter. The respondent denied the relationship of landlord and tenant in his written statement and challenged the jurisdiction of the Controller and submitted that he had occupied the open plot about 18 years back and raised construction thereon.
3. ' The preliminary issue in respect of the existence of relationship between the parties was framed.
4. The applicant examined himself and also Abdul Muhammad Khawaja Khan, Humayun Khan and Sher Bahadur. The applicant also relied upon entries made in the P. T. 1 Register of Excise and Taxation Department. Exh. P/1, which shows in paragraph 3 that Qassam was owner and in paragraph 4 it shows two rooms one in possession of owner and other is in possession of Dunya Gul. Receipt from K. M. C. In respect of taxes was also filed by the applicant which showed that he had paid rent to K. M. C. The Rent Controller disbelieved the testimony of Abdul Muhammad and Khawaja Khan. He also disbelieved the testimony of Humayun Khan after discussing their evidence in detail. The evidence of Sher Bbadur shows that he did not know whether any other person had held any enquiry about premises in question or not and he had stated that the neighbours,' had told him that the premises in question were of the applicant and the opponent was his tenant. His evidence is therefore merely of hearsay nature and he did not even enquire from the respondent.
5. Therefore, the whole question rested upon the testimony of the appellant supported by the documents that he has produced. The Rent Controller decided the issue in his favour, however, the learned Additional District Judge has considered the evidence of the applicant as well as of the respondent Dunya Gul and after considering the evidence of the applicant he has come to the conclusion that the applicant/appellant has not been able to establish that Dunya Gul respondent was his tenant. In paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Additional District Judge the !Earned Judge has observed f that the present appellant has taken contradictory stand in his deposition with respect to the existence of the relationship. I find a reasonable justification for the observation of the learned Additional District Judge.
6. ' The learned Additional District Judge has also brushed aside the entries in the P. T.-1 Register which showed Dunya Gul as his tenant in respect of one room.
7. ' Mr. Khuda Bux Umrani, learned counsel for appellant, has contended before me that there was no justification to disregard the entry in P. T.-1 Register. However, I find that in PLD 1967 Pesh. 380 Mr. Justice Faizullah Khan has observed that the entries in P. T.-1 Register may have some value ' on the question of title but the same is wholly irrelevant to the enquiry whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Mr. Umrani showed me a judgment of Mr. Justice Naimuddin of this High Court in PLD 1978 Kar. 19, where the Hon'ble Court has considered the entries in P. T.-1 Register, but I find that even Mr. Justice Naimuddin has clearly observed on page 26 of the same authority as under "No doubt entries in the Taxation Register are irrelevant in enquiry where the relationship c f landlord and tenant existed between the parties, as held by Faizullah Khan, J."
8. ' However, Mr. Justice Naimuddin, in view of the particular facts before him in that case, appears to have been greatly impressed by the statement of the witnesses who were examined on behalf of the landlord and therefore, the entries in the record of Excise and, Taxation Department were allowed by him to be used for some supporting value for the purpose of deciding relationship of landlord and tenant. In the present case before me, however, I find that there is not a single witness of undoubted veracity who has supported the case of the appellant. Three of the opponent's witnesses have been disbelieved by the Controller on cogent grounds and one witness Sher Bhadur is mere hearsay witness. That has left the applicant/appellant as his only witness supported by the P. T.-1 in respect of relationship between landlord and tenant. But again the deposition of the appellant had attracted adverse criticism from the District Judge and Mr. Umrani has not been able to show me that criticism by the District Judge was unfounded. The result.
9. Therefore, is that applicant/appellant himself is not worth being believed fully and in that case entries of P. T.-1 Register can hardly be of any value to him, particularly when the two Judges of two High Courts in their separate judgments have observed that those entries are irrelevant in respect of relationship between the landlord and tenant and they can be used only for the purpose of establishing title to the property.
10. ' In this view of evidence I do not find any justification to interfere with the finding of the learned Additional District Judge and I therefore dismiss the appeal.