1. ' This first rent appeal is filed against the impugned order, dated 13-4-1982 passed by II-Rent Controller, Karachi whereby he has allowed ejectment on the ground that premises in question have been converted from residential into commercial without consent of the landlord.
2. ' Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent before me is landlord and would be referred as such hereinafter and appellant namely Muhammad Yasin is tenant and would be referred as such hereinafter. Disputed accommodation is ground floor of Qtr.
3. No. 553, Block No.3, Liaquatabad, Karachi and the rent is Rs.250 per month. Landlord filed an application for ejectment on 19-3-1979 on the grounds of personal need, damage to the rented premises and conversion of the rented premises from residential into commercial without consent of landlord. Written statement was filed by the tenant in which the allegations made in the application for ejectment have been denied and plea taken by the tenant is that the landlord wants to enhance the rent, hence the application for ejectment has been filed. In view of the pleadings of the parties three issues were framed by the trial Court and so for the evidence is concerned landlord examined himself and closed his side and thereafter tenant examined himself and closed his side. The trial Court gave findings in respect of issues with regard to personal need and damage in the negative and issue with regard to conversion has been found in favour of landlord and on that basis order of eviction has been passed.
4. ' Mr. Maroof All Khan learned Counsel for the tenant has argued before me that in fact there is no legal evidence produced by the landlord in support of issue on which positive finding has been given by the learned Rent Controller. According to him landlord has failed in his duty to produce any evidence in support of this issue. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that in the application for ejectment, in paragraph 6, landlord has stated in one single sentence that the tenant without consent of applicant has converted a residential Quarter/House into commercial one. This allegation is denied in written statement in paragraph 6. It is further submitted by Mr. Maroof Ali Khan that in the evidence landlord in his affidavit produced before the trial Court has again in para. 6 reiterated the assertion in almost the same words. It is submitted by Mr. Maroof Ali Khan in this context that this is the only evidence produced by the landlord and the assertion made by him in the application for ejectment is neither elaborated further nor any details are given as to how the tenant has converted the premises in question from residential into commercial, hence this evidence produced by the landlord is utterly insufficient and inadequate to convince the Court that landlord has proved the issue. It is further submitted that the allegation as made by the landlord that premises were converted is denied in the written statement and further is denied again by the tenant in his affidavit of evidence. Further it is submitted that a suggestive question was put to tenant in the cross-examination that he prepared medicines in the demised premises which suggestion has been denied by the tenant. The gist of the argument of Mr. Maroof Ali Khan is that landlord should have elaborated this assertion in detail and should have given or produced further and satisfactory evidence in support of the allegation and only then the Rent Controller could give the finding that the landlord was able to discharge his burden and issue has been proved.
5. ' On the other hand argument put forward by Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan Advocate for the landlord has submitted that allegation is made by the landlord in clear cut terms in the application for ejectment which is understandable that the tenant has converted residential accommodation, let out to him, into commercial one and although in the written statement this allegation is denied by the tenant but when landlord filed his affidavit in evidence, no cross-examination was made by the tenant with regard to the assertion made by the landlord that the demised premises were converted by the tenant from residential to commercial without consent of the landlord. Absence of cross-examination on this point clearly shows that assertion made by the landlord is not called in question by the tenant. In support of this view reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on Qasim and others v. State PLD 1967 Kar.
233. Although this was a criminal case but the principle laid down in the reported case is that under sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act if there is no cross-examination on the fact deposed in the Examination-in-Chief, the presumption is that evidence is deemed to have been accepted by the party against whom it was given. The reliance is also placed on another case Muhammad Mujibur Rehman Siddiqui v. Abdul Bari and 3 others PLD 1981 Kar. 537 in which the principle stated in the above-mentioned case is reiterated. This being the correct legal position, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of ejectment and in consequence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appellant is directed to hand over vacant possession to the landlord within three months on the condition that the tenant will pay rent for the period to the landlord.