' FAROOQ ALI CHANNA , J.---The petitioners have filed the above petitions, involving the common questions of law and facts against the concurrent findings of two courts below i,e, Order dated 16- 12-2009, passed by learned IVth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, JUDGMENT Karachi (South) (hereinafter referred to as trial Court) in rent cases filed by the petitioners, dismissing the ejectment applications, the said orders were maintained by the learned VIth Additional District Judge, Karachi (South), vide judgments dated 28-9-2010 in appeals, filed by the petitioners.
2. Concisely the facts of the case are that the petitioners filed rent applications being share- holders of the shops situated in Barkat Plaza, constructed on 3 plots i,e, Survey No,1/5, 1/10 and 1/11, Sheet No,LR-1, Opposite Gulistan Masjid, Old Haji Camp, Siddique Wahab Road, Karachi, for ejectment of respondents, who are the tenants of the said shops (hereinafter to be referred as demised premises) on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent w,e,f, March, 2006 to September, 2007.
3. In pursuance of notice the respondents appeared before the trial Court and filed written statements, denying the relationship of landlord and tenant on the ground that one Nasaruddin Dodwani had inducted them in the demised premises as tenants against monthly rent of Rs,2500 per month and Rs,25,000 as security deposit, they were paying rent regularly till the dispute arose between the petitioners and Nasaruddin Dodwani over the ownership of property, thereafter they started depositing the rent in M.R.Cs in favour of petitioners and Nasaruddin Dodwani jointly.
4. The trial Court from the pleadings framed the following issues:-- (i), Whether there exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?
(ii) Whether the opponent has committed wilful default in the payment of monthly rent since March, 2006 to September, 2007?
(iii) What should the order be?
' After recording the evidence led by both the parties and hearing the learned counsel, the trial Court decided issue No,1 in negative, observing that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the said findings of the trial Court were upheld in appeals.
5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has admitted that Nasaruddin Dodwani the co-owner of building known as Barkat Plaza had rented out the demised premises to the respondents, he has also admitted the payment of rent by the respondents to said Nasaruddin Dodwani, and thereafter the respondents are depositing the rent in M.R.Cs. The sole plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents admittedly are depositing the rent in M.R.Cs in favour of petitioners and it is settled law that once the tenant paid the rent, the relationship of tenant and landlord would be established between the tenants and the receiver of rent, as such both the courts below have erred in observing that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. .
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has also admitted the deposit of rent in M.R.Cs in favour of the petitioners, however his contention is that the respondents are not depositing the rent in favour of the petitioners admitting them to be their landlord, they are depositing the rent reluctantly under the compelling circumstances as a security till the dispute of ownership between the share- holders over the property is resolved, so as to avoid the technical default on their part. Learned counsel has further contended that the respondents had also filed the inter-pleader suit under section 88 C.P.C. For declaration and permanent injunction, the said suit was decreed regularizing the deposit of rent by the respondents in M.R.Cs, as such on the basis of said deposit Of rent no relationship of landlord and tenant is established between the petitioners and respondents.
7. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, the sole controversy requires to be resolved by this court is whether on the basis of deposit of rent in M.R.Cs in favour of the petitioners, there exist the relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties.
8. I have examined the averments of miscellaneous rent application under section 10(3) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and its supporting affidavits produced in the instant petitions. It is stated in M.R.Cs. That Nasaruddin Dodwani and Shahabuddin Barkat the attorneys of other shareholders are constantly visiting the respondents and claiming to be the actual and lawful owners of building and beneficiaries of the rent of demised premises and thereby stressing the respondents to tender the monthly rent to them, which manifest that there was glaring dispute of ownership/proprietary rights amongst the shareholders over the building known as Barkat Plaza where the demised premises are located. In the circumstances the respondents served a notice upon Nasaruddin Dodwani seeking the clarification of situation, the said notice was not replied, therefore, finding no alternate the respondents approached the Rent Controller and filed miscellaneous rent applications seeking permission to deposit the monthly rent in court so as to avoid technical and complex problems or artificial default in payment of rent.
9. The above facts specifically manifest that the respondents are depositing the rent in favour of petitioners and Nasaruddin Dodwani jointly, they have not paid the rent of any month exclusively to the petitioners, as such on the basis of deposit of rent jointly in favour of all the owners, it would not be appropriate rather it would be beyond the jurisdiction of Rent Controller to declare the respondents to be the tenants of some of the share- holders of the building till the dispute of ownership over the building is decided by the competent civil court. Further, both the courts below after examining the evidence led by both the parties have decided the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in negative, the said findings of both the courts below do not suffer from any infirmity nor based upon misreading and non-reading of evidence and invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is justifiable only if the courts below have committed glaring illegalities' causing the miscarriage of justice, which the learned counsel for petitioners has failed to point out. In a case reported as PLD 2005 Karachi 416 (Raja Abdul Rauf v. Habib Ahmed and others) it has been held that:-- "In other words, mere fact that on the basis of same evidence another view of the matter is also possible, will not justify exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by this Court to substitute the findings of lower Courts with its own finding and to rescue the petitioner from his ejectment from the rented premises."
10. For the reasons and dictum referred above the constitution petitions are dismissed.