1. ' This appeal is directed against the order of the VIIth Rent Controller, Karachi, dated 3-1-1985, whereby he ordered the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed premises to the respondent within 60 days thereof.
2. ' The respondent claims to be the landlord of Quarter No,A-146, Section 6 Korangi Township, Karachi. He has stated that the appellant is his tenant in the said Quarter and the rate of rent is Rs,100 per month, vide agreement of tenancy, dated 19-1-1980. The agreement was for 11 months and the period has expired. The respondent did not want to extend the period of tenancy and asked the appellant to vacate the same. He has further alleged that he requires the premises in question for his bona fide requirement and that of his family as they are living in rented premises.
3. The respondent had also averred that the appellant was a defaulter in payment of rent with effect from April, 1981. This ejectment application was filed by the respondent through his attorney Islamuddin. Islamuddin had also signed and verified the application on the strength of his power of attorney which was executed by the respondent who was residing at Jeddah and was duly attested by the Pakistani Counsel at Jeddah. The appellant contested the ejectment application and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in his written statement. He has also challenged the power of attorney given by the respondent in favour of Islamuddin. The appellant has alleged that the respondent had sold away quarter in question to him by an agreement of sale and had received 23,000 from him as total consideration thereof. He had promised to execute the registered sale-deed. He had further alleged that subsequently the attorney of the respondent by misrepresentation obtained his signature on the rent agreement, dated 19-1-1980 on the pre-text that it was the agreement of sale and have taken away the same for the purpose of obtaining the signature of the respondent. The appellant admits that he had entered into the premises in question in 1973 as a tenant but after the said agreement of sale and payment of price he has become its owner and was not liable to pay any rent. Lastly he has alleged that, his wife and one Moin Mirza had gone to the house of Islamuddin the attorney of the respondent and had asked him to execute the registered sale-deed. The wife of Islamuddin snatched original receipts from the hand of the wife of the appellant and tore it into pieces and then also threatened them with dire consequences.
4. ' On the pleadings following issues were framed by the Controller:-
(1) Whether this application is not' maintainable?
(2) Whether there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?
(3) Whether the opponent is defaulter in payment of rent?
(4) Whether the applicant requires the premises in question for his personal bona fide use.
(5) What should be the order?
5. All the issues were found by the learned Controller in favour of the respondent and, therefore, he allowed the application for ejectment as shown above.
6. ' I have heard Mr. Dilawar Hussain, Advocate for the appellant at length and Mr. Attaullah, Advocate for the respondent.
7. ' Issue No,1 relates to the maintainability of the suit which is challenged by the appellant on the score that the power of attorney is not valid. The power of attorney which is on the record as Exh."A- 1" is duly signed by the respondent Shujauddin and duly attested by the First Secretary Embassy of Pakistan at Jeddah on 27-4-1982, which is admittedly a date before the filing of the rent application. The rent application was filed on 4-5-1982 and was thus subsequent to the execution of power of attorney. The power of attorney is quite happily worded and exhaustive and gives almost all powers enabling Islamuddin to file the present proceedings and to continue the same either by himself or through an Advocate. The respondent's counsel has cited the case of Pakistan Radio House Limited reported in 1983 CLC 1656 where it was held that power of attorney was to be strictly construed and no power which was not intended to be conferred could be spelt. It may be pointed out that every ruling is an authority on its own facts. In the case under ruling the attorney had sold the premises to the tenants although the power of attorney had not authorised him to sell the property. This ruling, therefore, cannot be applied to the facts of the present case by any stretch of argument. There is no allegation by the appellant to the effect that the attorney had exceeded his powers. On the contrary it was the appellant who had challenged the power of attorney and he was unable to show as to which act has been done by the attorney which was beyond the authority given to him.
8. ' The second issue relates to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The appellant has admitted that he had initially occupied these premises as a tenant of the respondent. Hence he was estopped from challenging the initial title of the respondent. If he wanted to set up a subsequent title then the burden to prove that title was heaviling upon him. He has failed to discharge that burden. He has produced photostat copy of receipt of Rs,23,000 purported to have been executed by the attorney of respondent. Attorney Islamuddin has denied execution of the receipt as well as the receipt of consideration. The worst is that the appellant's counsel has not confronted the respondent's attorney with this receipt or his signature thereon. The original receipt is alleged to have been torn by wife of the attorney after snatching it from the appellant. No such criminal proceedings are said to have been lodged by the appellant. His remaining silent for all this period cuts at the root of his case. The appellant's counsel, had cited the case of T.R. Arthor V. A.R. David reported in 1981 CLC 522, where it was held that a document cannot be relied upon if it was not proved by the executant even if no objection was raised by the other side at the time of its production. This ruling is also distinguishable from the facts of the present case because it is on quite different facts. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was admitted from the very beginning and the burden of proving its termination was on the respondent. Hence the subsequent rent agreement was not required to be produced. Apart from that the execution of the second rent agreement is not denied by the appellant but his allegation is that his signature was obtained by deception. Third issue relates to default in payment of rent which fact has not been denied by the appellant. Similarly he has not denied the requirement of the premises by the appellant for his bona fide personal use and that of his family. He has contested the ejectment application by setting up an agreement of sale between him and the respondent.
9. ' I, therefore, did not find any merit in this appeal.
10. ' These are the reasons for which I had dismissed the appeal of the appellant today, by short order.