S. A. NUSRAT, J.-Leave - in this petition is sought from the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 17-4-1983 whereby the petitioner's First Rent Appeal challenging the order of the Rent Controller, Karachi, dated 13-5-1981 was dismissed.
2. The dispute relates to the western portion of the house situated on plot No. 71/4A, Bihar Colony, Mason Road, Karachi which has been in occupation of the petitioner who had initially taken the same from Mst. Aisha Begum. The respondents filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner from the said premises on 4-10-1978 on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide requirement stating that the disputed property had since then been purchased by them.
It was averred that notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance in this behalf was duly served upon the petitioner by registered post A. D. Which was neither replied nor any rent was paid to them as required under the notice.
3. The application was resisted by the petitioner and a preliminary objection was raised that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was denied that the property was purchased by the respondents and on the contrary it. Was averred that Mst. Aisha Begum bad agreed to transfer the disputed house to the petitioner but since she had with mala fide intention attempted to transfer the same on high consideration, a suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge Karachi which was pending. On such pleadings the learned Rent Controller framed a preliminary issued with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties which, after recording of evidence war. Decided against the petitioner and he was ordered to vacate the house. This order was challenged before the High Court in appeal which was dismissed and has given rise to this petition.
4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not correctly decided inasmuch as no sale-deed transferring the disputed house to the respondents was produced. Service of notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance was also denied. These contentions were also raised before the learned High Court, examined and rejected.
5. The contention that the disputed property had not been transferred by Aisha Begum to the respondents by a registered sale-deed was examined by the High Court with reference to paragraph 11 of the plaint in Suit No. 1654 of 1978 filed by the petitioner wherein he had himself stated that since the property was situated in Bihar Colony the same could not be trans--feered by a registered sale-deed and consequently he had not applied for specific performance of his alleged "oral sale agreement". The contention raised by the learned counsel therefore is clearly inconsistent with the stand taken by the petitioner in his own plaint. The Rent Controller while examin--ing the evidence also found that the disputed property had been duly trans--feered in favour of the respondents in the Excise as well as K. M. C. Records. Additionally the learned High Court has also observed that Mst. Aisha Begum had confirmed having sold the premises to the respondents for valuable consideration. The learned High Court compared the signature of the appellant on the memo of appeal and the written statement filed b him in the trial Court with the signature on the A. D. Receipt and found the same to tally. In this view of the matter the contention that the notice was not served upon the petitioner was rightly repelled.
6. It is not disputed that no rent was paid by the petitioner to the respondents who had even denied the receipt of the notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance. The case of default was thus rightly accepted by the learned two Courts and such findings of fact are not open to further scrutiny.
7. In the result the petition has no merit and is dismissed.
M. A. K.