1. ' This appeal is directed against the order dated 3-3-1987 passed by the 1Vth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi West, whereby. He allowed the eviction application filed by the respondent and directed the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute within 60 days from the date of the order.
2. ' The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent acquired the property bearing No,12/1(A-1-5 S-80) Wilayatabad. Manghopir Road, Karachi, from Mst.Khairunnisa wife of Israr Ahmed Abbasi and the appellant is the tenant in respect of shop Nos.1 and 2 at the monthly rental of. Rs,75. The respondent filed eviction application No,1147 of 1985 (New No,2352 of 1985) against the appellant on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal requirement. The appellant resisted the eviction application. The respondent filed his own affidavit-in-evidence in support of the eviction application besides affidavit-in-evidence of Haji Mohammadullah and Sarfraz Ahmed. The appellant filed his own affidavit-in-evidence in rebuttal besides the affidavit- in-evidence Hoshiar Ali and Salamat Jan Khan. They were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. ' The Controller on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties decided issue No,1 in the negative, issue No,2 in the affirmative and issue No,3 in the negative and allowed the eviction application only on the ground of default in payment of rent.
4. ' The appellant being aggrieved against the order dated 30-3-1987 bf IVth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi West, has preferred this First Rent Appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.
5. ' I have 'heard the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order. I have also gone through the R & P of the case.
6. ' It is an admitted position that the respondent acquired the premises in dispute from Mst.Khairunnisa wife of Israr Ahmed Abbasi. It is also an admitted position that after acquiring the property, the respondent served a legal notice dated 18-9-1984 as required by section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The appellant sent a reply stating therein that he had agreed to purchase the premises in dispute from Mst.Khairunnisa. The appellant filed written statement wherein he took the same plea that he purchased the property in dispute from Mst.Khairunnisa and further stated therein that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is an admitted position that the appellant received a notice dated 18-9-1984 from the respondent but did not tender rent within 30 days from the date of the receipt of notice. I have perused the agreement dated 14-5-1984 executed between Mst.Khairunnisa wife of Israr Ahmed and the appellant. It is no doubt that Mst.Khairunnisa agreed to sell the premises in dispute to the appellant for total sale consideration of Rs,9,000. It is also a fact that Mst.Khairunnisa received Rs,2,000 as part payment. The said Mst.Khairunnisa instead of finalizing the transaction with the appellant sold the premises in dispute to the respondent. The case of the appellant is that after the execution of the agreement dated 14-5-1984, the relationship of landlord and tenant between Mst.Khairunnisa and the appellant ceased to exist. This contention is devoid of force. I have perused the agreement. There is no such condition/term in the agreement through which it can be shown that the relationship between the parties as that of landlady and tenant ceased to exist from the date of execution of the agreement. The respondent purchased the property in dispute from Mst.Khairunnisa and thereafter he served a notice as required by provisions of section 18 of the Ordinance. It is an admitted position that the appellant did not comply with the notice. It is also an admitted position that the appellant did not tender the rent within 3 days as required by the provisions of section 18 of the Ordinance. In, view of this legal position, it seems that the learned Controller A has decided the issue in accordance with law. No illegality and misappreciation of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. ' For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any force in this appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, I allow four months' time to the appellant to vacate the premises provided. He continues to deposit rent as ordered by the learned Controller.