1. ' HABIB-UR-RAHMAN SHAIKH, J.---Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 24-5-2010 passed by the learned Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi, East in F.R.A. No,133 of 2008, whereby, while maintaining the order dated 15-11-2008 passed by the learned IInd Rent Controller, Karachi East in Rent Case No,221 of 2005, the Petitioner was directed to vacate the demise premises and hand over its peaceful possession to the respondent within 30 days of that order.
2. ' Briefly the facts giving rise to this Constitutional Petition are that the respondent No,3 is the owner of the Bungalow constructed on Plot No,58-N/6, PECHS, Karachi whereas the petitioner is the tenant of portion consisting of two rooms, which was let out to the petitioner by husband of the respondent No,3 during his lifetime. Thereafter, after the death of husband of the respondent No,3, the petitioner was demanded to pay monthly rent of Rs,3000 to the respondent No,3 as she has no source of income after the death of her husband. Initially, the petitioner paid to monthly rent only for two months i,e, January and February, 1996 and stopped paying the monthly rent to the respondent No,3. The petitioner was time and again requested for payment of monthly rent to the respondent No,3, which she failed to pay the same and the petitioner was defaulted in payment of monthly rent from March, 1996 to April 2005, which comes to Rs,3,27,000.
3. ' It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the two the Courts below have erred in law while passing the judgments, which were passed based misreading and non- reading. She has further contended that the both the Courts below have not applied their judicious mind while passing the impugned judgments. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there exist no relationship between the Parties as Tenant and the Landlady, as the petitioner is the sister of the late husband of the respondent No,3, who was in his lifetime allowed the petitioner to reside in the ground floor. She has further urged that the respondent No,3 is not the owner of the Ground Floor, which is in possession of the petitioner and the respondent No,3 is residing in the upper floor, under the family settlement. Learned counsel for the petitioner next argued that after the death of husband of the respondent No,3, the petitioner herself offered the respondent No,3 to pay Rs,3000 per month as the respondent No,3 has no source of income after the death of her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged. That both the Courts below have failed to consider it that there is no Tenancy Agreement between the Parties, therefore, question of default in payment of Rs,3000 in the shape of monthly rent to the respondent No,3 does not arise.
4. ' On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No,3 has vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and denied all the averments made by her.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No,3 has further contended that it is correct that the petitioner is the real sister of the late husband of the respondent No,3, who had allowed the petitioner to reside in the ground floor of his Bungalow constructed on Plot No,58-N/6, PECHS, Karachi, but on an agreed monthly rent, which was earlier depositing by the petitioner, but later on she defaulted in payment of monthly rent. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No,3, it is a matter of record that the Petitioner deposited the monthly rent in learned trial Court in MRC No,473/1996 in the year 1996. Learned counsel for the respondent No,3 has next urged that the before the learned trial Court the petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Application bearing No,473 of 1996 against the respondent No,3 under section 10(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Learned counsel for the respondent No,3 has further urged that if the petitioner is in possession of the Ground Floor under a family settlement, why she is depositing the rent in MRC No,473 of 1996.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record available with their able assistance.
7. ' Prima facie, it appears that, according to the petitioner, she was permitted by her brother, Morris Hussain Jafferi, husband of the respondent No,3 in his lifetime to live in the ground floor of Bungalow constructed on Plot No,58-N/6, PECHS, Karachi, but the record reveals that the petitioner deposited the rent in MRC .No,473/1996 in the sum of Rs,500 though it is an admitted position that there is no Tenancy. Agreement between the parties, because in my humble view, the petitioner being the real sister of the husband of the respondent No,3 it may not be necessary under the family understanding in the circumstance prevailing between them, but as to why and on what capacity the petitioner deposited the rent in MRC No,473/1996. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner herself offered the respondent No,3 to pay. Rs,3000 per month as the respondent No,3 has no source of income after the death of her husband, in my humble view, if it is so, the financial aid cannot be deposited in the MRC No,473 of 1996 even though it is in the shape of monthly rent.
8. ' Perusal of the record reveals that before the learned trial Court, the petitioner moved an application under section 10(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, relevant contents of which are as under:-- "That the applicant was inducted as a tenant by the husband of the opponent Morris Hussain Jaffery, who is the real brother of the appellant at the monthly rent of Rs,500"
9. ' In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that on the one hand petitioner, who is the sister of the late husband of the respondent No,3, stated that his brother namely Morris Hussain Jafferi, husband of the respondent No,3 in his lifetime allowed her to reside in the ground floor, but on the other hand, the petitioner had been depositing the rent in MRC No,473 of 1996.
10. Depositing of rent in the said MRC by the petitioner is obviously an admission that the petitioner is residing in the Ground Floor of the Bungalow constructed on Plot No,58-N/6, PECHS, Karachi, in the capacity of Tenant, therefore, her denial of relationship as tenant and the landlady between the Parties does not weight to be considered at this stage. Obviously the petitioner has failed to show any illegally and irregularly in the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below, and the same do not call for any interference by this Court. Consequently this Constitutional Petition is hereby dismissed.
11. ' The petitioner is directed to vacate the demise premises and hand over its peaceful possession to the respondent No,3 within 60 days of this order, failing which, the Executing Court is directed to issue writ of possession without notice to the parties.
12. ' This constitutional petition was dismissed by a short order dated 12-3-2013 and these are the reasons for the same.