1. This appeal at the instance of landlord is directed against the order of the learned IVth Senior Civil Judge/A.S.J./Rent Controller (West) Karachi, passed under section 11(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called `the Ordinance') thereby allowing -the application of the respondent for restoration of supply of electricity to the demised premises viz. Residential house bearing No.G-8/A, Pak Colony, Karachi.
2. The respondent filed an application under section 11(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 alleging, inter alia, that he was provided electricity through an electric wire from the bungalow of the appellant and that a sub-meter was also installed within the premises of the appellant but the same was subsequently taken out. The respondent, according to his version, was getting the electric supply right from the year 1971 until it was discontinued on 16-9-1986. The' appellant filed written statement in denial of .The respondent's claim as made in the application. His case was that as per tenancy agreement the electricity was not supplied to the respondent and that a temporary wire was provided at his request subsequently in view of the prolonged illness. Of the respondent's wife.
3. The respondent in support of his case examined himself as well as two witnesses, namely,. P.W.
4. Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui and P.W. Muhammad Ibxar, whereas no evidence was led 'on behalf of the appellant.
5. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the un-controverted statement made on Oath by the respondent as well as his two above'-named witnesses, allowed the application as stated-above.
6. The learned Rent Controller in his impugned order has observed "that since the opponent has failed to file his affidavit-in-evidence, and put himself in the witness-box for his cross-examination as required under section 19(a) of the Ordinance the applicant has been deprived of his valuable right of his cross-examination". He has further held on the basis of the evidence prevalent on record that the respondent was enjoying the amenities/facilities sine last so many years.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties Mr. Khajumal D. Ladhar, learned counsel for the appellant 'vehemently contended that since the agreement to tenancy specifically makes a mention of the fact that the premises was let out to the respondent without the electricity hence the mere fact that at a subsequent stage, the appellant had supplied electricity temporarily to the respondent, it did not give him a legal right to enjoy the said facility for unlimited period. In his submission, as also pleaded by the, appellant in his written statement, the temporary electric supply was given to the respondent on humanitarian basis as his wife was ailing and he had approached the appellant with a request for supply of electricity temporarily: He further emphasised that even on the basis of the evidence of the respondent it is clearly discernible that only a temporary' electricity connection was provided to the demised premises and that the respondent had to apply for and obtain a meter in his own name in the demised premises which he did not do. The respondent was, therefore, under an obligation to get a meter installed in his promises which-he did not do for an unsustainable ground of appellant's having refused to give him "No Objection Certificate". In his submission, no such certificate was required to be given by the landlord/appellant. He could not, however, substantiate this contention with reference to the rules made under the K.E.S.C: Act. He; however, insisted that if it was a fact as alleged by the respondent that the no objection certificate was refused then the respondent should have served upon the appellant a notice which he did not do. I- do not find any force in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insamuch as it was open to him to have approached the K.E.S.C. For disconnected ithimself thereby controverting the provisions of Section 11 of the Ordinance.
8. After going through the judgment of the learned trial Court, I am satisfied that he has for valid and cogent reasons allowed the application and there is, therefore, no justification for me to interfere with the impugned order.
9. The appeal is, therefore, held to be devoid of force and it is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.