' This is an appeal against the order dated 20th November, 1983 passed by the learned IVth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi in Rent Case No, 491/72, ordering the ejectment on the ground of default and subletting. The above rent case was filed by the respondent on the above grounds. The matter was agitated upto the High Court in Second Appeal No, 26/76 filed by the present appellant, in which it was held by a learned Single Judge of this Court through a judgment dated 31st August, 1980 that the recorded statutory tenant is present respondent No, 2 and that the present appellant came into the picture subsequent to 20th December, 1958. After that this case was remanded to the learned Rent Controller with the direction to proceed on merit. The learned Rent Controller after the above remand order and after recording the evidence by his order under appeal has allowed the rent application of respondent No, I. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.
2. In support of the above appeal Mr. Ismail Pithier, learned counsel for the appellant has urged as follows :-
(i) That the appellant was the tenant and if so, the finding of the learned Rent Controller is not in accordance with the evidence.
(ii) That if the appellant was the trespasser the rent proceedings were not competent.
3. In my view the finding on question, who was the tenant of the tenement in question stands concluded by the above judgment, dated 31st August, 1980 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in 'Ind Appeal No, 26/76 filed by the present appellant, and therefore, it cannot be re- agitated. In view of the above conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the second appeal, the appellant was not the tenant.
4. Adverting to the second contention of Mr. Ismail Padhiar, it will suffice to observe that since the recorded tenant was a party to the rent proceeding in which the appellant was impleaded as a sub-tenant, it cannot be urged that the rent proceedings were not competent. As a matter of fact the impleading of the appellant in the rent proceeding has benefited her inasmuch as she agitated the question of relationship upto the Second Appeal No, 26/76. The rent proceedings lingered on about 7 years, because the appellant was impleaded as a party otherwise the ex parte ejectment order would have been passed against respondent No, 2 in 1972 as he remained absent after the service of the notice.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the above appeal has no merit, and therefore, it is dismissed in limine.
However, I allow two months time to the appellant to hand over the vacant possession on the condition that in case the appellant fails to hand over the vacant possession to the respondent on the expiry of the above period of two months, the learned Rent Controller shall issue a writ of ejectment without further notice to the appellant,