1. ' This appeal is directed against the order of striking of defence of Malik Khan defendant dated 17- 9-1984 passed by IXth. Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi on the ground that rent for the period from March, 1980 to May, 1980 has not been deposited. The appeal has been filed by Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad s/o Abdul Sattar who claims to be the legal heir of Malik Khan. However the death certificate which has been filed by Mr. A.K.M. Idris today and which has been accepted as the copy of the death certificate of Malik Khan by Mr. Zamir and he has initialed the same today shows that the certificate is not in respect of Malik Khan. Mr. Zamirul Haq has also filed today a photo stat copy of the Identity Card of Muhammad Ahmad Alias Mulkhan s/o Muhammad Bashir and the address of Muhammad is shown to be 897/3, Liaquatabad, Karachi No, 19 while the address of the opponent Malik Khan shown in the application is 3/956-A Liaquatabad, Karachi. Explanation is that a shop involved in this appeal while the address in the Identity Card was of the residence. However, the appellant has not shown in this appeal as to how he is the legal representative of Malik Khan. In the first instance, there is no connection shown between Muhammad Ahmad and Malik Khan and in the second instance relationship is not disclosed. The Rent Order had been passed on 24-2-1982 and it was of course passed in the absence of the opponent as well as his counsel and the allegation is that Malik Khan has died on 30th January, 1982, but I find from R & P that on 31-5-1982 objections had been filed on behalf of the opponent. And there is another objection filed by the opponent's counsel on 17-11-1982. There were written arguments filed on behalf of the Advocate for opponent and again on 24-7-1984 the objections were filed. The present impugned order was passed on 17-9-1984 after hearing the counsel of the parties and nowhere there is any mention that Malik Khan had died or that the counsel for Malik Khan was not in a position to make any statement in respect of the commission of the default. In fact even report of the Nazir submitted before the Rent Controller shows that the rent has been regularly deposited from March, 1982 till 23-12-1982. If Malik Khan was dead then who had deposited the rent from March, 1982 to December, 1982 has not been explained by the appellant. The appellant's case is that the deceased was in occupation of the shop, he does not claim that the present appellant was in occupation of the shop. The appellant has stated that he was not aware of the case and that he had not been brought on record intentionally but he has failed to show as to how and when he came to know of these proceedings and in any case, he had not stated that he had deposited any rent on behalf of the deceased defendant. Therefore, under these circumstance, it is difficult to believe that Malik Khan, the opponent, had died in January, 1982 and somebody continued depositing the rent from January, 1982 till December, 1982 hence the stand taken by the appellant is completely belied.
2. Moreover as I have observed earlier that the appellant has failed to show as to how he is the legal representative of Malik Khan and he has further failed to show any nexus between Muhammad Ahmad and Malik Khan. Moreover in the counter-affidavit filed by Willayatullah it has been stated that the present appellant has no connection with Malik Khan and that Malik Khan was living alone in the premises in dispute. In these circumstances, this appeal is found to be filed by a person who had not shown himself to be the legal representative of the opponent Malik Khan.
3. ' Moreover, the legal ground taken by the appellant that joining of the L. Rs, of Malik Khan was necessary is not correct in view of Order-XXII, rule 4(4), C.P.C. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.