1. ' This case arose from the facts and circumstances which are briefly narrated as follows. The appellant Arif Abdul Satter is occupying the shop No,1 in Khalid Cloth Market, Liaquatabad, Karachi as tenant of the respondent Hamid Ati at monthly rent of Rs,100, As per alleged terms and conditions of the tenancy the rent is payable in advance on 1st of each month. The appellant/tenant is also required to pay electric charges a Re.1 per unit in addition to the monthly rent. According to the case of the landlord,- the tenant not only fell in arrears of rent from July, 1979 to November, 1979 but was also liable to pay electric charges for 538 units allegedly consumed by him by the end of November, 1979. The tenant is also charged with making unauthorized additions and alterations in the shop, besides subletting the shop to some other person. The landlord therefore, filed ejectment application on 6-12-1979 seeking ejectment of the tenant from the disputed shop.
2. ' The tenant resisted his eviction, denying the allegations of default in payment of rent and electric charges and so also the allegations of making unauthorized additions/alterations and subletting of the shop. However after due consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Rent Controller found all the above three allegations made by the landlord proved and accordingly allowed his ejectment application, directing the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the shop to the landlord within 90 days of the order, dated 8-9-1981 which the tenant has impugned in this appeal.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective case, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs by short order, dated 23-12-1984. By the said order the appellant was directed to deliver the possession of the demised shop within two months. Following are the reasons in support of the short order:- ' Taking up the issue of default in payment of rent, the tenant is allegedly in arrears of rent for five months from July, 1979 to November, 1979 apart from being liable to pay electric charges for 538 units. The tenant has however denied the allegations of default attributed to him. His plea is that there being no written agreement between the parties, the tenancy is governed by 'the law and hence it is a statutory tenancy. Consequently the rent for months of July and August deposited by him in Court on 9-9-1979 as within time. Similarly according to him. he has committed no default even in payment of electric charges.
4. ' No doubt there is no formal agreement executed between the parties spelling out the terms and conditions of the tenancy. According to the landlord the tenancy is regulated by the terms and conditions printed on the back of rent receipts issued to the tenant from time to time. In .support of this aversion, reference naps been made to the specimen rent receipt Exh.A/2. It is not denied by the tenant that he had been receiving rent receipts in the form of the above specimen rent receipt carrying the terms and conditions of the tenancy on its back. The condition No,1 is to this effect: "Rent for every month of tenancy will be payable in advance of 1st day of tenancy month." As stated above the tenant has denied the tenancy being governed by the terms and conditions printed on the back of the rent receipts. The question is if his denial has the effect of -negating the terms and conditions printed on the back of rent receipts. There is no indication that the tenant had at any time raised objection to appearing of the terms and conditions on the back of the rent receipts or that he had in any manner made it clear to the landlord that he was not bound by such terms and conditions. His absolute silence in this regard was tantamount to his acquiescence in the said terms and conditions. Drawing of such an inference was not unjustified also for the reason that no other formal agreement existed between the parties. Thus the learned Rent Controller has rightly held that even though there was 'no express agreement between the parties, they were impliedly bound by the terms and conditions printed on the back of the rent receipts. Since the rent has not been paid by the tenant in accordance with said terms and conditions, he has clearly committed the default rendering himself liable to eviction.
5. ' The next ground on which the ejectment application is based is the unauthorized additions and alterations made by the tenant in the disputed shop. In this connection the evidence of the landlord shows that without his knowledge and permission the tenant has increased the covered area of the disputed shop by making encroachment on the land lying in front of the shop and has further removed the wooden door and has got the iron shutters fixed in its place. The tenant has frankly conceded the making of above additions and alterations. His explanation however is that like other neighboring shopkeepers who are also tenants of the same landlord, he has obtained the letter's permission for the said changes. In an attempt to get corroboration for his contention he examined Muhammad Idrees and Akhlaq. The first mentioned witness has admitted in cross- examination that the appellant did not obtain the landlord's permission for the aforesaid alterations and additions in the shop. Similarly Akhlaq has admitted that he was not present when the appellant obtained permission of the respondent for the controversial changes in the shop.
6. Thus their evidence does not help the tenant. The appellant has also sought to rely upon the admission made by the landlord's witnesses; Sardar and Sabir Hussain. According to them they had made encroachment in their shops with consent of the landlord. Both these witnesses are admittedly the tenants of the same landlord (i.e, respondent Hamid Ali) having their shops in the same line in which the disputed shop situate. Therefore it was argued on behalf of the tenant that since the respondent/landlord gave consent to his other tenants for the encroachment, the appellant too must have been likewise, permitted to make the alleged encroachment in his shop.
7. The argument is too hypothetical to be believed. The fact that the above witnesses were allowed to make encroachments in their shops, does not automatically prove that the appellant too was given similar consent for the encroachment. In his case the respondent has denied having given his consent. Moreover as pointed out above the appellant's own witnesses have not supported him in this respect. The appellant has therefore failed to prove that the additions and alterations made by him in the disputed shop had the blessing of the respondent. In other words he had made those changes unauthorized and thereby he had violated the condition No,3 of the tenancy printed on the back of the rent receipt. On this ground also the appellant/tenant has rendered himself liable for eviction.
8. ' As for third ground that the tenant had sublet the disputed shop, there is no satisfactory evidence to prove this allegation. According to the appellant his father had rented out the disputed shop in his name when he was only seven years old. This plea raised by the appellant finds indirect support from the respondent's own admission that some old man who had represented himself as Arif Abdul Sattar had rented out the shop. In fact Arif is the name of the appellant/tenant and Abdul Sattar was his father. There is no documentary proof on the point as to whether the tenancy was obtained by the appellant's father in the name of the appellant or by representing himself to be Arif Abdul Sattar himself. However it is an admitted position that not only from the beginning the tenancy was created in favour of Arif Abdul Sattar but also it was continued in his name as the rent receipts were issued in the appellant's name. So for all purposes, the appellant whose name is Arif Abdul Sattar is the tenant. It is riot the case of the respondent that the present appellant has sublet the disputed shop. According to him if at all any subletting was made, it was made by an old man who represented himself as Arif Abdul Sattar. Since the present appellant is not the said old man, the allegation of subletting cannot be held to have been proved against him. Moreover the said old man has not been made as a party. The very fact that apart from the appellant who is admittedly the tenant, no other person is joined as a party also shows that the charge of subletting is groundless.
9. ' In view of the above discussion since the landlord's case for eviction has been proved against the appellant, the appeal was dismissed as stated above.