' This is second appeal from the judgment of Ind Additional District Judge, Karachi, dated 6-4-1982, whereby the learned Judge had set aside the order of XIV Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, dated 4-8-1975. The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the ejectment application filed by the respondent against the appellant in respect of the disputed premises. The learned Additional District Judge had set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge and granted the ejectment application of the respondent against the appellant and directed the appellant to hand over vacant possession of the disputed premises to the respondent within 60 days. The rented premises is situated on Plot No,C/243, Hasrat Mohabi Colony, Manghopir Road, Karachi. It is admitted that the plot in question belongs to the Government and had been in unauthorized possession whereupon construction was raised by one Qadirdad. According to the respondent it was purchased by Younus from Qadirdad. Younus sold it to the respondent through Shamsuddin. It was rented out in the first instance to one Mobeen in the year 1964. The case of the respondent was that he was friendly with the appellant, who wanted the house in question on rent. On the request of the appellant Mobeen vacated the house in 1967, where after it was rented out to the appellant at Rs,30 per month.
2. The case of the respondent before the learned Rent Controller was that from 1-1-1968 the appellant did not pay him any rent. Hence he filed ejectment application before the learned Rent Controller.
3. The written statement of the appellant was that the respondent is neither the owner of the house in question nor he is his landlord. He claims that the unauthorized construction on the plot in question was purchased by his wife Mst. Najma Basharat. He does not state from whom it was purchased. On the above pleadings only one preliminary issue was framed by the learned Rent Controller regarding existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
4. In support of his claim the respondent has examined Mobeen Khan, Abdul Ghafoor, Shamsuddin, Muhammad Younus and himself. In rebuttal the appellant examined himself, Muhammad Jamil and Badshah Hussain.
5. The learned Rent Controller was of the view that the respondent had failed to prove that he was owner of the house in question or that he was landlord of the appellant. In view of this finding he dismissed the application of the respondent by his judgment dated 4-8-1975.
6. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge thoroughly examined the evidence of the respondent and came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant was fully established. As there were conflicting decisions of the two Courts, hence I have gone through the evidence and am inclined to agree with the assessment of evidence made by the learned Additional District Judge. Previous tenant Mobeen Khan, who appeared as A.W. No,1, is admittedly neighbor of both the parties. He has deposed that .He had been paying rent to the respondent and that in the year 1967 he had vacated this house at the request of respondent, who wanted to accommodate the appellant.
7. The next witness Abdul Ghafoor is also a neighbour of the parties and has deposed that he had received rent on behalf of the respondent from the appellant for three months. Shamsuddin has produced the sale agreement (Exh. P.W. 3/1) whereby he had purchased this house from Younus on behalf of the respondent. He had produced the sale agreement of Younus and also the receipt for Rs,1,200 executed by Younus.
8. P.W. Muhammad Younus has also proved the title of the respondent and has produced extract of P.T. 1 showing that Shaukat All Ansari is owner of this house and Basharat is tenant.
9. The most important document is the notice which the respondent had given to the appellant, copy of which has been produced as Exh.4/6. It is dated 23-6-1970 whereby the appellant has been asked to pay rent. The acknowledgement receipt (Exh.P.W.4/6) proves that this notice was received by the appellant, but he did not make any reply. Thus the documentary evidence produced by the respondent fully proves not only his title over the house in dispute, but also the fact that he is landlord of the appellant.
10. The first appellate Court has, therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that the Rent Controller had failed to appreciate the evidence of the respondent properly.
11. It would be interesting to observe that the evidence produced by the appellant has been contradicted by his own evidence. For example he has produced the certificate of Chairman Union Committee Manghopi as Exh.D/6 saying that the appellant is owner and occupier of the property situated on Unit No, C/243, but the same Chairman had later on cancelled this certificate vide a document Exh. P.W.4/10, whereby he says that on further inquiry he had learnt that the appellant was not the owner of the property in dispute and that his certificate in favour of the wife of the respondent namely, Mst. Najma Basharat be deemed to have been cancelled. The appellant had also produced affidavits of Muhammad Din and Muhammad Sultan saying that the property in question has been purchased by Mst. Najma Basharat wife of the respondent, but these very persons i.e, Muhammad Din and Muhammad Sultan had given statements before Excise and Taxation Officer saying that they had sworn affidavits due to misrepresentation and that the fact was that Mst. Najma Basharat was not the owner of the house in ' dispute. The respondent has produced the statement of Muhammad Sultan as Exh. P.W.4/12 and similar statement of Muhammad Din as Exh.P.W.4/11. These documents have come from the record of the Excise and Taxation Department. Unfortunately the learned Rent Controller did not take notice of these unrequited documents.
For the above reasons I am inclined to agree with the learned Additional District Judge that the respondent was proved to be landlord and that the appellant was his tenant. In view of the refusal of the appellant to accept the title of the landlord, it was futile to go into the issue of none payment of rent which was implied in the very plea of the appellant. The appellate Court was, therefore, justified in the order that he passed. Consequently the appeal is dismissed with costs.