1. Both the appeals are in series of litigation between the parties over the tenancy in respect of an Urban Property identified as tenement No.10 on plot No.L.R-5/1 M.E. Building situated on Siddiqui Wahab Road, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as the rented premises). The events to their filing stand in sequence and they are, accordingly, decided together. They have arisen in the following circumstances: The rented premises was originally in occupation of Haji Ali Akbar Shah as the tenant at the settled rent of Rs.60 per month. On his death, it remained in occupation of his son Syed Mahmood Shah and others. On 22-2-1973, Mansoor Ali Lakdawala, the appellant in F.R.A. No.144/83 filed Rent Case No.607/73.For seeking ejectment of Syed Mahmood Shah son of Syed Haji Ali Akbar Shah, the respondent in F.R.A. No.144/83, from the rented premises on the grounds that he had made default in payment of rent from December, 1972 and also that the appellant required the premises for the purpose of reconstruction there on. The respondent resisted the application, refuting the grounds advanced for getting the rented premises vacated and also contending that Messrs Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee were the landlord and not the appellant. The learned Controller, after holding necessary enquiry, dismissed the rent case by order, dated 9-1-1983 holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but the tenancy was between the respondent and Messrs Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons, a registered partnership firm. The F.R.A.
2. No.144/83, is directed against that order, Another Rent Case No.131/83 was filed by same Mansoor Ali and Messrs Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons, who are respondents in F.R.A. No.449/85, against Syed Mahmood Shah and three others by names Ali Mahammad Shah, Ibrahim Shah and Taj Bibi /appellants in F.R.A. No.449/85, for their ejectment from the rented premises on the ground that they had made default in payment of rent from March, 1973 to December, 1982. This rent case also was resisted After holding enquiry, the learned Controller passed order, dated 27th May, 1985 directing that Mahmood Shah and others shall vacate the premises within 60 days. The F.R.A. No.449/85 has arisen from that order. The first Rent Case No.607/73 was dismissed on the preliminary issue as regards relationship of landlord and tenant between Mansoor Ali and Syed Mahmood Shah (the appellant and the respondent respectively in F.R.A No.144/83). The learned Controller held by the order impugned in the said appeal that Messrs Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons were the landlord of the rented premises. Consequently, the second Rent Case No.131/83 for ejectment was filed by Messrs Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons, also joined by Mansoor Ali and that case was decided in their favour. The first Rent Case No.607/73, ejectment was sought on the grounds of non-payment of rent from December, 1972, use of the premises for a purpose other than that for which it was originally let-out, and thirdly the premises was required for reconstruction. The second rent case No.131/83 was filed on the ground of purely non-payment of rent from December, 1972 to January, 1983. In both the appeals, Mansoor Ali is represented by Mr. K.A. Wahab Advocate, who is also representing Messrs Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons, the respondents in F.R.A. No.449/85. Syed Mahmood Shah and other appellants in F.R.A. No.449/85 are represented by Mr. Khuda f3ux Umrani Advocate, who has also represented Syed Mahmood Shah in the other appeal F.R.A. No.144/83 wherein he is the respondent. Mr. K.A. Wahab, Advocate has urged that it has not been disputed at any stage that Ali Akbar Shah, the predecessor-in-interest of Syed Mahmood Shah and others, was occupying the rented premises as a tenant and the right of tenancy held by All Akbar Shah devolved on them consequent upon his death. He has further urged that non-payment of rent for the rented premises from December, 1972 to January, 1983 was not denied. He has, therefore, advanced the argument that Syed Mahmood Shah and others are defaulters in making payment of rent and have made themselves liable for ejectment. As regards the question as to who was the landlord, he has contended that the rented premises belongs to Mansoor Ali but rent thereof was being recovered by Messrs Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons, a registered partnership firm he was partner of. According to him, the Rent Case No.607/73 filed by Mansoor Ali was dismissed on the technical ground that Messrs Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons were the landlord within the meaning of the term defined in the West Pakistan Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance and, that lacuna, if at all any stood rectified by the filing of another Rent Case No.131/83 by him as well as on behalf of the partnership firm. In view of the order of ejectment passed in the subsequent Rent Case No.131/83, he has not pressed the appeal being F.R.A.
3. No.144/83 filed by Mansoor Ali against the decision in Rent Case No.607/73.
4. Mr. Khuda Bux Umrani, Advocate representing Mahmood Shah and others in both the appeals has contended that Mansoor Ali had failed to establish in Rent Case No.607/73 that he was the landlord of the rented premises. Indeed he has not denied that Messrs Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons were the landlord of the rented premises. Fdrther, he has contended that the first ejectment case No.607/73 was'filed-by, Mansoor Ali claiming to be the landlord of the rented premises and Mahmood Shah contested that case which was decided on 9-1-1983 and the second Rent Case No.131/83 was filed on 6-1-1983, while the arrears of rent were deposited with the Controller under Rent Case No.189/82 on 18-2-1982 and no wilful default in payment of rent is attributable to Mahmood Shah and others.
5. In Rent Case No.607/73, appellant Mansoor Ali in F.R.A. No.131/83, claimed to be the owner of the rented premises and sought ejectment of the tenant Syed Mahmood Shah on the ground of default in payment of rent from December, 1972 and some other grounds. He filed in evidence certain documents relating to his title over the property. His status as the landlord of the rented premises was challenged on the basis of certain rent receipts issued on the printed rent bills in the title head of "Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons" and some other documents. It was not seriously disputed that Mansoor Ali was a partner of the firm "Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons" and the issuance of rent receipts on the rent bills bearing the Letter Head of Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons did not necessarily dislodge his claim over the rented premises. But a Suit No.131/83 was filed in the Court of XIVth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi in respect of the same property against Syed Mahmood Shah by Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons as the landlord of the building. The plaint in that suit was filed and verified by Mansoor All himself. This document did stand in his way of claiming to be the landlord of the rented premises in his individual capacity. The Rent Case No.607/73 filed by him was, therefore, rightly dismissed by way of finding on the preliminary issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between he and Mahmood Shah. Accordingly, the F.R.A. No.144/83 filed by Mansoor Ali could not succeed and it merits dismissal. Moreover, it has not been pressed by the landlord counsel appearing for the appellant Mansoor Ali.
6. The Second Rent Case No.131/83 was filed by Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons and Mansoor All against Syed Mahmood Shah and others. They made denial in their written statement that their predecessor-ininterest Haji An Akbar Shah was the tenant, although Syed Mahmood Shah had taken a plea in the Rent Case No.607/73 filed by Mansoor Ali that Haji Akbar Shah was the tenant of Messrs Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons. They stood belied by their own statement made in their application under section 10 (3) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (Rent Miscellaneous Case No.180/82) by them, that they were tenants of Messrs Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons and the landlords had refused to accept rent from December, 1972. It was stated by them in their written statement that they had offered rent to the landlords for the period from December 1972 to 1973 but the rent was not accepted and thereafter Rent Case No.607/73 was filed and it was decided on 9- 1-1983, and in the meantime, the rent for the period from December, 1972 to January, 1983 was deposited with the Controller in Rent (Miscellaneous) Case No.189/82. It was obviously not disputed that rent for the period from December, 1972 till the filing of Rent (Miscellaneous) Case No.189/82 i.e. For the period of about 10 years was not paid. Of course, Mansoor Ali's status as the landlord of the rented premises was disputed in Rent Case No. 607/73 but Syed Mahmood ShaSi had taken the plea that Messrs Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons were landlords and there was no reason for withholding payment of rent to the acknowledged landlord. Mere pendency of Rent Case No.607/73 filed by Mansoor Ali, whose status as the landlord of the rented premises was denied Syed Mahmood Shah, did not give any justification to the tenants Syed Mahmood Shah and others to have withheld payment of rent for the period of 10 years. Arrears of rent for the period of 10 years is said to haVe been deposited with the Controller before filing of the Rent Case No.131/83 but that fact did not absolve them of the default made by them in payment of rent for the period of 10 years. If any authority is needed on this proposition, reference may be made to the case of Haji Fida Hussain v. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan reported in 1972 SCMR 262. Reference may also be made to another case Syed Azhar Imam Rizvi v. Mst. Saleema Khatoon reported in 1985 SC M- R 24. The learned counsel for the tenants Mahmood Shah and others has cited some cases viz. PLD 1976 Kar. 1156; 1983 SCMR 1118 and PLD 1984 Kar.
373. But none of those cases is attracted on the facts of the cases under appeal. The case Muhammad Saeed and 4 others v. Wazir Begum and another does not, at all, advance the case of the tenants Mahmood Shah and others as the observation made therein was that solitary refusal by landlord to accept rent on one occasion Aid not absolve tenant of his liability to pay rent for each successive month. There is no such plea in the case under appeal. The learned counsel has also cited othertwo cases viz. 1983 SCMR 1118 and PLD 1984 Kar.
373. These two cases also do not apply to the facts of this case. In the first case there was question of service of notice of the transfer of the premises but no such question is involved in the cases under appeal. In the second case, there was default in payment of rept. Evidently, the tenants Mahmbod Shah and others, who are the appAlants in F.R.+A. No.449/85, did commit flagrant default in payment of rent for the aforesaid period of about 10 years and the learned Controller has rightly made the order of their ejectment on that ground. For the aforesaid reasons, the F.R.A.
7. No.144/83 is dismissed with no order as to costs; while F.R.A. No.449/85 is dismissed with costs. The appellants in F.R.A. No.449/85 namely Syed Mahmood Shah and others are allowed two months' time for vacating the rented premises and handing over its possession to the landlords namely Messrs Karim Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons through their partner Mansoor Ali.
8. Both the appeals were dismissed by short order, dated 12-2-1986 and aforesaid are the detailed reasons, therefor.