1. ' This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order, dated 30-1-1983, of the XIII Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby the eviction application No, 467 of 1981 filed by the respondent was allowed and the appellant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises in dispute within thirty days of the said order.
2. ' The facts which give rise to this appeal are that the respondent is owner of building known "Chand Manzil" standing on Plot No, 166/B, Bihar Colony, Karachi and the appellant is tenant of Shop No,2 thereof at the monthly rent of Rs,
40. The respondent filed eviction application against the appellant on the ground of personal use for her husband and on the ground of making additions and alterations in such a manner which has impaired the value and utility of the building without the written consent of the respondent. The appellant filed written statement and stating therein that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also averred that Abdul Rashid is the tenant of the respondent. The appellant also denied the ground of personal use and additions and alterations.
3. ' The respondent filed affidavit-in-evidence of her husband. The appellant filed affidavit-in- evidence. They were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
4. ' The learned Rent Controller after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties and after taking into consideration the arguments of the learned counsel decided all the issues in the affirmative and allowed the eviction application on issues Nos. 2 and 3, vide order, dated 30-1- 1983.
5. ' Mr. Khawaja Mehboob Sadiq the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
6. ' On the other hand Mr. M. Hussain Adil Khatri the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the shop in dispute was let out to the appellant in the beginning and thereafter at his request the tenancy was transferred in his son's name. When his son Abdul Rashid took the tenancy, he was minor. When the eviction application was filed, he was minor. His contention is that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
7. ' I have taken into consideration the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record and proceedings of the rent case. I have also perused the rent receipts issued by the respondent. It seems that the shop in dispute was let out to Abdul Rashid son of the appellant. Mr. Khawaja Mehboob Sadiq has contended that it had not been established that the shop in dispute was let out to the appellant since the relationship was strongly disputed by the appellant in his written statement, in these circumtances it was for the respondent to establish the fact that the shop in dispute was let out to the appellant. In view of the fact that the learned Rent Controller has misconstrued the relationship, the learned counsel for both the .Parties jointly submitted statement that the case be remanded to the learned Rent Controller to determine this issue on the basis of evidence on record and further allowing the respondent an opportunity to add name of Abdul Rasnid in the eviction application and also to amend the application and further allowing the parties an opportunity to adduce, additional evidence if so desired. I consider the request is appropriate. In view of the circumstances detailed above, I would ) The respondent is allowed to file amended application and also join Abdul' Rashid as co-opponent. The appellant and Abdul Rashid are also allowed to file written statement. Learned counsel for the respondent undertakes to file amended application before 21-9-1985. The parties are directed to appear before the ,first Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller South, Karachi on 21-9-1985. The learned Rent Conti Oiler should give priority to this Rent Case No, 467 of 1981 and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order and R&P from this Court. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.