' The appellant/landlord has filed this appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the order, dated 12-4-1987 passed by IInd Rent Controller, Karachi (West), whereby Rent. Case No, 4227 of 1985, filed by the appellant, was dismissed.
2. The case of the appellant is that the respondent No, 1 is his tenant in respect of Shop No, 2, Plot No, 1260/17, F.B. Area, Karachi on monthly rent of Rs, 135, which was increased to Rs, 150 w.e.f, 1-10- 1983. It is alleged that in March, 1987 the respondent No,1 without the consent of the appellant handed over the possession of the shop to respondent No,2, who is his father and also tenant of adjacent Shop No,3. It is further averred that respondent No,2 closed the said shop from its outer door and made out an inner door in between the two shops and as such turned Shop No, 2 into a godown. Thus the value of the shop has been grossly impaired.
3. The respondents in their joint written statement have admitted that the possession of both the shops is with respondent No,2. It is stated that the respondent No,1 abandoned possession of Shop No,2 and handed it over to the respondent No,2 with the appellant's consent, who attorned him as tenant on increased rent of Rs, 150 per month. In 1985, the appellant wanted to increase rent exorbitantly and on his refusal to accept rent from respondent No, 2 at the old rate, he was constrained to tender rent by Money Order and ultimately started depositing it at the rate of Rs, 300 per month alongwith electricity charges in Miscellaneous Rent Case No, 2392 of 1985 w.e.f, July, 1985. With regard to the allegation as to additions and alterations and impairing the value of shop, it was contended by respondents that the partition wall of the shops had inter connected doors and no change whatsoever had been made in the shop.
4. On the basis of the pleadings the following points were framed for determination: "(1) Whether the opponent No,1 made unauthorised alteration in the shop premises and infringed the condition of the shops and impaired the material value and utility of the same ?
(2) Whether the opponent No,1 without the consent of applicant handed over the possession of the shop to opponent No, 2 ?
(3) What should the order be ? "
5. The appellant had filed his affidavit-in-evidence reiterating the allegations made by him but he failed to appear for cross-examination as he had left for Saudi Arabia. A.W. 2, Muhammad Abu Shamim and A.W. 3 MA. Mughal in their depositions also stated that they came to know through the appellant that respondent No,1 had handed over the shop to respondent No, 2 who closed it down and opened an interlinked door between the two shops and turned the shop into a godown without any permission from the appellant. According to A.W. 3 in April, 1985, he tried to reconcile the matter between the appellant and the respondents.
6. Respondent No,1, in his evidence, has admitted having handed over possession of the shop in dispute to the respondent and his father, namely, respondent No,2 had been paying rent of both the shops which is Rs, 300 per month and now rent of both the shops is being deposited by respondent No,2. It is, however, admitted by him that there is a way inbetween shops, but there is no door between them.
7. Bashir Ahmed, respondent No,2 in his evidence, has denied the allegation of subletting and reiterated that he has been depositing rent in the Court. He has also produced rent receipts as Ex.0/5 to 0/23-C and Money Order receipt. Since the appellant had demanded increase in rent, he had filed a suit for injunction. It is admitted by him that there is a way in between the shops, but there was no door. The said way inbetween the shops was in existence before the shops were let out.
8. Learned Rent Controller had held that the appellant failed to adduce any satisfactory evidence as to how the respondents have impaired the value and utility of the shop. Similarly, according to him, the alleged sub-letting is also not established from the evidence on record.
9. Admittedly the appellant did not produce himself for cross-examination. The fact that both the shops are in possession of respondent No,2 is not denied by him. His statement and of his son (respondent No,1) to the effect that respondent No,2 has been paying rent of Rs, 300 per month to the appellant in respect of both the shops at the rate of Rs, 150 per shop are being supported by rent receipts (Ex. 0/5 to Ex.0/23-C) and Money Order receipt. The evidence of respondents as to creation of independent tenancy between the appellant and respondent No,2 in respect of Shop No,2 has remained unshaken and established. The appellant has not produced any evidence as to how the conditions on which the shop was let out, were infringed. Similarly the allegation that the respondents have impaired the value or utility of the shop is not supported by any evidence at all.
The mere fact that the respondents have carried out certain additions and alterations will not entitle him to an order for eviction. It was incumbent on him to establish that these additions and alterations have resulted into impairing the value or utility of the premises and he has failed to do so.
10. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed with costs.