1. ' This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is directed against the order, dated 15th August, 1982 passed by the Controller, Karachi, whereby he allowed the application under section 13 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, by the respondent for eviction of the applicant and another person.
2. ' The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated, are that the respondent filed an application for eviction of Mst. Ghulam Kubra widow of Faqir Muhammad Nathe Khan and Nazir Ahmad Nathe Khan, the present appellant, from tenement No, 28, 6/1 L.R. 4, Corner of Ireland and Gawardar Road, Karachi, stating that MR. Ghulam Kubra being widow and successor of tenant Faqir Muhammad Nathe Khan had failed and neglected to pay rent due from her from 1st March, 1970 to 30th November, 1972 and she had sublet the premises to Nazir Ahmed Nathe Khan, the present appellant.
3. ' Mst. Ghulam Kubra filed a written statement stating that she was not the only successor of Faqir Muhammad Nathe Khan but he was succeeded by other successors who were his children namely Iftikhar Ahmed Niazi and Israr Ahmed Niazi and the present appellant who is brother of the deceased tenant Faqir Muhammad Nathe Khan and Mst. Ghulam Kubra have not at all transferred or sublet the premises to the present appellant.
4. ' Present appellant had also filed a similar written statement denying default or subletting of the premises and taking the same pleas as taken by Mst. Ghulam Kubra in her written statement.
5. On the pleadings of the parties the Controller framed the following issues.
6. "(1) Whether the opponent No, 1 has committed default in the payment of rent ?
(2) Whether the opponent No, 1 has sublet the premises to opponent No, 2 ?
(3) What should the order be ?"
7. ' The learned Controller decided issue No, 1 in the affirmative and issue No, 2 in the negative and ordered the eviction of the appellant from the premises by the order now impugned in this appeal.
8. ' I have heard the appellant in person, and Mr. M. M. Mahmoodi learned counsel for the respondent.
9. ' The appellant submitted that there was no default on his part or on the part of Mst. Ghulam Kubra as her son Israr Ahmed had sent three money orders on 29th April, 1970, 13th May, 1970 and 17th August, 1971, which were refused by the respondent. It may be stated that the money order, dated 29th April, 1970, was for the month of March, 1970 and the money order, dated 13th May, 1970 was for the month of April, 1970 and the money order, dated 17th August, 1971 purports to be for rent upto 31st July, 1972. It was therefore, urged that there was no wilful default on his part.
10. ' On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Mahmoodi that the appellant has no locus standi to file the appeal as he was not the tenant and not even sub-tenant according to the finding of the learned Controller and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.
11. ' Mr. Mahmoodi has pointed out that the respondent has accepted Mst. Ghulam Kubra as his tenant as her request made by her in her letter, dated 3rd September, 1971 (Exh. A-4). The plea taken in the written statement was that deceased tenant had left several children and in view of this plea the present appellant could not be a successor or a legal representative, and the sons had not applied for being joined as a party or claimed any right or interest in the tenancy at any stage.
12. I agree with Mr. Mahmoodi that this appeal by the present appellant is not maintainable as he was neither the tenant nor the legal representative of the deceased tenant.
13. As regards merits there is no dispute that two money orders for the months of March and April appear to have been refused but so far as third money order is concerned it is claimed that it is fictitious for it bears no round seal of the post office, while Exhs. G and Gil, bear such seals. I asked the appellant to produce postal receipt of paying the amount to the post office for recording the same by money order but he was not able to produce the same nor did he or Mst. Ghulam Kubra produce the same before the Controller. Therefore I am of the opinion that there was default in payment of rent for 31 months i,e, from May, 1970 to November, 1972 for the rent for two months was sent by money order and thereafter no rent was sent nor was the same deposited in Court.
14. Under these circumstances, I hold that besides the appeal being notice maintainable by the appellant has no merits. I accordingly dismiss the same.