1. ' The appellant has impugned order dated 12-4-1987 passed by the learned Rent Controller II, Karachi (West) in Rent Case No, 4228 of 1985 which was dismissed by him. The case of the appellant is that the respondent is his tenant in respect of Shop No, 3 Plot No, 1260/17, Federal 'B'
2. Area, on rent of Rs, 150 per month vide Tenancy Agreement dated 1st October, 1983. In March, 1985 the respondent occupied Shop No, 2 which the appellant had rented out to the respondent's son Aslam Ahmed, and afterwards affixed a door in between the two shops thus changing the two shops into one shop. By doing so the respondent infringed the conditions on which the shop was let out to him and impaired the material value and utility of the shops. It is further averred that the respondent is a constant nuisance for the locality as he quarrels and misbehaves with the neighbouring residents.
3. ' It may be stated here that alongwith the said Rent Case No, 4228 of 1985, the appellant had also filed another Rent Case No, 4227 of 1985 against the respondent and his son Bashir Ahmed for their ejectment from Shop No, 2 on the grounds of sub-letting by the respondent's son to him and impairing the value or utility of the shop by carrying out the said unauthorised alteration. This ejectment application was also dismissed and the appellant preferred F.R.A. No, 580 of 1987 against the order of the learned Rent Controller which too was heard by me alongwith this appeal.
4. ' The respondent in his written statement has denied the various allegations made by the appellant stating that on 1-10-1983 his said son abandoned the possession of Shop No, 2 and with the consent of the appellant gave it to the respondent on increased rent of Rs, 150 per month and from the said date he has been paying Rs, 300 per month for both the shops. The appellant wanted further increase in the rent and refused to accept agreed rent. The respondent therefore sent rent for two months by money order and then started depositing the rent of the said shop and electricity charges in Miscellaneous Rent Case No, 2391 of 1985. It is vehemently denied by him that he had impaired the value or utility of shop in question by carrying out additions and alterations. It is further denied that he had infringed the condition on which the shop was let out or that he was a constant nuisance for the locality as alleged. On the basis of the pleading of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the following points for determination.
5. "(1) Whether opponent infringed the condition of the disputed shops and impaired the material value and utility of the disputed shops?
(2) Whether the opponent has created nuisance to the neighbours?"
6. ' Learned Rent Controller decided these issues against the appellant and hence this appeal.
7. ' The appellant in his deposition has reiterated the various allegations made by him stating further that the additions and alterations were carried out by the respondent while he was away to Hyderabad alongwith his family. The respondent refused to remove the alterations when he was asked to do so. The appellant has also produced two witnesses namely Muhammad Abu Shahmim businessm an and MA. Mughal an employee of National Bank. According to both of them they came to know from the appellant that the respondent had opened inter link door between shops Nos. 2 and 3 and turned the said shop in question to a godown without any permission from the appellant.
8. ' The respondent while controverting the various averments made against him has categorically asserted that he had neither impaired the material value or utility of the shop nor had created any nuisance in the locality nor he misbehaved with the neighbours.
9. A perusal of evidence produced by the appellant will reveal that appellant has neither produced any evidence as to how the value or utility of the premises has been impaired nor there is any evidence that the respondent was creating nuisance in the neighbourhood. Accordingly, I do. Not find any merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed with costs.