1. ' This appeal is directed against the order, dated 10-10-1983 of !Ind Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi. The facts which give rise to this appeal are that appellant is owner of two storeyed house built on plot bearing No,4/B, Block-6, P.E.C.H.S. Limited, -Karachi, and the respondent is monthly tenant in respect of portion of ground floor of the said premises consisting of two rooms and one store on a monthly rent of Rs,300 plus Rs,11 per month as water and conservancy charges. The appellant filed Ejectment Application No,1310 of 1982 against the respondent on the ground of default, use of the premises for the purposes other than it was let out to him, committing of such acts by the respondent which are likely to impair materially the use and value of the premises, nuisance and personal use. The respondent filed his written statement and resisted the ejectment application. The appellant in support of the case examined himself and his son while the respondent did not examine himself in defence. That on the basis of the pleadings of the above parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the opponent has committed default in payment of rent?
(2) Whether the opponent has without the written consent of the landlord used premises for the purpose other than that for which it was let out ?
(3) Whether the opponent has committed such acts as are likely to impair the material value or utility of the premises ?
(4) Whether the opponent has indulged in such activities as are causing nuisance to the neighbours ?
2. Whether the landlord requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation or,for the occupation of his children ?
(6) What should be the order ?
3. ' The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, decided issues Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 in the negative, vide his aforesaid order, dated A-10-1983.
4. ' In support of the above appeal Mr. Faizuddin, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the appellant has established the ine of the premises for the purposes other than it was let out to the respondent. He has further contended that the premises are being used for commercial purpose.
5. ' On the other hand Mr. Mirza Abdul Rashid, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellant has note established the use of the premises other than the purpose for which it was let out to the respondent. He has further contended that the respondent has been using the premises for office correspondence from the very beginning and the landlord is fully aware of the facts from the very beginning and there has been no cause of complaint whatsoever.
6. ' It is pertinent to note that the appellant in his rent application averred that the respondent/tenant without obtaining previous permission of the appellant and without his consent transformed the demised portion of the residential unit on the ground floor of the property into a commercial venture. Upon surveying the Karachi Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd., Karachi declared and treated the ground floor as commercial property for the imposition of additional electricity consumption charges under the revised tariff. The appellant/landlord did not approve of the situation. The tenant/respondent denied the averment and averred that as regards the question of survey for electricity power the terms of tenancy are not affected according to the rent laws.
7. ' I have considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that the assertion made by the appellant/landlord in rent application that the tenement is being used for commercial purpose instead of being used as residential is not denied by the respondent. The appellant also stated in his affidavit-inevidence that the disputed premises was let out for residential purpose.
8. ' The admitted facts leading to this controversy are that the disputed premises were let out to the respondent for residential purposes in the year 1968. The respondent started using a part of the disputed premises for the purposes of commercial unit. Thereupon the appellant filed ejectment application on various grounds including using a part of the disputed premises for commercial unit. He has used the disputed premises for a purpose other than for which it was leased out to him and has thus become liable to ejectment. The respondent admitted that he has been using the premises for office correspondence from the very beginning. The Rent Controller negatived the plea of the appellant, holding that the dominant purpose of the said premises continues to be residential and therefore there was no perversion of the purpose of the lease.
9. ' It is also not disputed that the disputed premises were let out for a residential purpose but has been converted into a commercial unit. Section 15(2)(iii)(b) provides that the tenant has; without the written consent of the landlord used the premises for the purpose -other than that for which it was let out.
10. I am of the view that where the demised building is describe as 'residential building' or 'house' etc. The same has to be used for residential purpose alone, even in a lease deed or rent deed it is no further postulated that the demised building has to be used exclusively for residential purposes otherwise even if a small portion is put to us for business purposes by lessee or tenant without the written consent of the landlord.
11. ' In the instant case the appellant stated in his affidavit that the respondent had installed several sewing machines propelled by electricity and also got a telephone connection in the name of "Shah Enterprise". The respondent did not choose to cross-examine the appellant. As such his statement on oath has gone unchallenged. In these circumstances the conversion is, therefore, proved.
12. ' For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order to the extent of issue No,2 is set aside and the order of ejectment is passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent. The respondent is, however, allowed time to vacate the disputed premises on or before 30-9-1985. In the circumstances of the case, the parties have to bear their own costs.