1. ' This order will govern the disposal of abovenoted two rent appeals filed by the tenant and the alleged landlord, respectively against the order of Rent Controller, dated 27-11-1984, in Rent Case No,2984 of 1983. In order to avoid confusion with regard to the parties. I will refer them by their respective names in this order, Jam Ashiq Ali instituted Rent Cases No,2984 of 1983 against Mustafa Atrinejad for his eviction from Flat No,15. DC-3, Block No,9, K.D.A. Scheme No,V, Kehkashan Clifton, Karachi on the allegation of default in payment of rent and personal requirement. The default in the application was alleged from July, 1979. Mustafa Atrinejad in his written statement denied the existence oS relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Jam Ashiq Ali, and took the plea that the premises were let out to him by one T.M. Shafi, son of Muhammad Alam, who had held out to him as the owner of the premises, under a written agreement of lease, dated 6-8-1976. In view of the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue, and, after recording evidence of the parties, reached the conclusion that Mustafa Atrinejad was the tenant of Jam Ashiq Ali, and, as it was not disputed that no rent was tendered, he ordered his eviction from the premises on the ground of default. In F.R.A. No,1 of 1985, Mustafa Atrinejad has challenged the order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Controller on the ground of default and has only taken the plea that, as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the order of eviction passed against him is bad in law. In F.R.A. No,18 of 1985, Jam Ashiq Ali has filed the appeal, complaining that the issue of personal and bona fide requirement, which was one of the grounds in the Rent Application, has not been considered by the Rent Controller, and therefore, the application should also be granted on personal and bona fide requirement.
2. ' The learned counsel for Mustafa Atrinejad has urged before me that there was no evidence on record to reach the conclusion that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Jam Ashiq Ali. It is urged by the learned counsel for Mustafa Atrinejad that the rent agreement, dated 6-8-1976, which is on record, and which is not disputed by Jam Ashiq Ali, clearly shows that this agreement was executed by T.M. Shafi in favour of Mustafa Atrinejad as owner of the premises.
3. It is also urged by the learned counsel for Mustafa Atrinejad that there is no evidence on record to show that T.M. Shafi was acting as attorney of Jam Ashiq Ali, while letting out the premises to Mustafa Atrinejad.
4. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that there is no evidence on record to prove that Mustafa Atrinejad was the tenant of Jam Ashiq Ali. Jam Ashiq Ali, in his affidavit of, evidence, alleged that the premises in suit was purchased by him under a registered sale-deed, dated 10-2-1975, and that Mustafa Atrinejad was inducted as a tenant in the said flat by his attorney under a lease agreement, dated 6-8-1976, at monthly rent of Rs,1,300. It may be mentioned here that the agreement of tenancy, which is on record, shows that T.M. Shafi has described himself as the owner of the premises, which were let out to Mustafa' Atrinejad. In cross-examination, Jam Ashiq Ali admitted that he was not aware of the contents of the lease agreement executed between Mustafa Atrinejad and T.M. Shafi. He further stated that he did not remember if his attorney had informed him about the terms and conditions settled with Mustafa Atrinejad. He also admitted that, in the rent agreement the attorney described himself as the owner of the property, and he came to know of this fact in the year 1976. He further stated that, in spite of this knowledge that T.M. Shafi had described himself as the owner of the premises, he did not serve any written notice on Mustafa Atrinejad to inform him that T.M. Shafi was only his attorney, and not the owner of the premises. He also stated that, from 1976 up to the date of the death, the said T.M.
5. Shafi used to recover rent from Mustafa Atrinejad and pass on the rent receipts. The date of death of T.M. Shafi is stated in the cross-examination as the end of 1981, while, in the Rent Application, the default is alleged against Mustafa Atrinejad from July, 1979, Jam Ashiq All also admitted in cross- examination that, even after the death of his attorney in 1981 until the filing of the Rent Case on 3-8- 1983, he did not inform Mustafa Atrinejad in writing about the above facts. In his own evidence, Mustafa Atrinejad denied that the premises were let out to him by T.M. Shall as attorney of Jam Ashiq Ali. It is significant that although it was claimed by Jam Ashiq All that T.M. Shafi was acting as attorney, but no power of attorney was produced on record. The learned counsel for Jam Ashiq All has vehemently contended that, as there is evidence on recc-d to show that the premises in dispute were purchased by Jam Ashiq Ali through a registered sale-deed executed on 29th of January, 1975, therefore, the Rent Controller rightly held him to be the owner of the premises. I am afraid, the contention of the learned counsel for Jam Ashiq Al cannot be accepted, as the mere fact that sale-deed was executed in A his favour on 29th of January, 1975. In respect of the premises dispute could not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Mustaf Atrinejad was tenant of Jam Ashiq Ali, especially in the present case, where the premises were let out to Mustafa Atrinejad under a written agreement of tenancy by one T.M. Shah who had described himself as the owner and landlord of the premises. There is nothing on the record to reach the conclusion that T.M. Shafi had acted for and on behalf of Jam Ashiq Ali, while letting out the premises to Mustafa Atrinejad. In the absence of that evidence, the Rent Controller could not hold existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, as admittedly the rent agreement executed between the partes is of much later date than the date of the sale-deed in favour of Jam Ashiq Ali. In these circumstances, the Rent Controller should have rejected the Rent Application on the ground of non-existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and left them to follow such other course as was available to them under the normal law. As a result of the above discussion, I allow Appeal No,1 of 1985, and set aside the order of Rent Controller, granting ejectment of Mustafa Atrinejad on the ground of non-payment of rent. Appeal No, F.R.A. 18 of 1985, filed by Jam Ashiq All is also dismissed, as there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. There will, however, be no order as to costs.