SYED ABDUR RAHMAN, J.- This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order of Miss. Najma Sweleh Syed Rent Controller Cantonment Board Karachi dated 10-11-1990.
2. The case of the appellants is that they had. Taken the premises in dispute on rent from the respondent by virtue of tenancy agreement dated 15-3- 1986 at Rs.10,000/- per month. The appellants paid Rs.1,20,000/- as advance. This amount was to be adjusted in the current rent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. The appellants further alleged that the respondent had sold this bungalow by an agreement of sale dated 19-12-1987 to appellant No. 1 for a consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-. The respondent filed ejectment application against the appellants alleging that they had defaulted in payment of rent. The appellants filed written-statement in which they disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Rent Controller directed the appellants to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. The appellants failed to deposit the same, hence their defence was struck OF and they were ordered to be evicted forthwith.
3. Mr. G.M. Saleem appearing for the appellants has contended that as soon as the appellants had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parlies, it was the duty of the Controller to frame an issue as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and to give a finding, which was not done in this case.
4. I do not agree with the contention of Mr. G.M. Saleem. The record of the lower court shows that after perusal of the written-statement which was filed on 24-3-1990 the learned Rent Controller framed an issue on 19-5-1990 to the following effect:- "Whether the tenancy and ownership relations lies between the parties or not."
5. It may be pointed out that the alleged agreement of sale was not produced along with the written-statement but it was mentioned as a document relied upon by the appellants. By order passed on the same day in the diary-sheet, the learned Rent Controller directed that this issue about relationship between the parties was to be settled on production of documents by opponents counsel. Consequently, she adjourned the case to 9-6-1990 for filing rent agreement and documents of ownership concerned. The diary-sheet of 9-6-1990 reads as under:- "The counsel for the applicant marked present and filed rent account. None has appeared on behalf of opponent and his counsel. The opponent's counsel did not produce any evidence of ownership. I feel that opponent is hesitating to produce legal documents of ownership by using one or other delaying tactics. The opponent's counsel was categorically informed on the last date of hearing that he has to produce ownership documents and rent account today. But neither he nor the opponent appeared in Court till 12-00 Noon. Now I have no option except to pass rent to the claim of applicant and her counsel. The opponent is directed to deposit monthly rent in this Court at the rate of Rs. 10000/- p.m. Before the fifth of each following month. As far as the arrears of thirty six months are concerned the, opponent is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- (3 lacs and sixty thousands) in this Court before 9th of July, 1990. The case is adjourned to 14/07/90 for further proceedings."
From the perusal of the order contained in the diary-sheet of 9-6-1990 mentioned above it is quite clear that the appellants were given an opportunity for producing the alleged agreement of sale which they deliberatly suppressed. Hence the learned Rent Controller was justified in holding this issue in favour of the respondent. She, therefore, passed the order of deposit of tentative rent and the arrears. On failure of the appellants to deposit the same she struck OF the defence of the appellants on 10-11-1990.
6. I am, therefore, satisfied that the learned Rent Controller was justified in passing the tentative order for rent after holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant was in existence between the patties. Even otherwise, an agreement of sale does not absolve the tenant, even if he is the proposed purchaser of the premises which he had initially taken on rent, until and unless there is a cl&r term therein that the tenant shall not pay the rent after such agreement. Reliance in this connection was placed by the learned counsel for the respondent in the following cases;-
(1) 1976 S.C.M.R. 141 HAJI JAN MOHAMMAD VS.GHULAM GHAUS & OTHERS
(2) P.L.D. 1986 Karachi 74 KHAWAJA AMMAR HUSSAIN VS. MOHAMMAD SHABBIRUDDIN KHAN
(3) 1990 M.L.D. 2212 GOPALDAS VS. RIAZ AHMAD QURESHI
(4) 1981 C.L.C. 347 KHUSRO ALAM HYDRI VS. MST.IQBAL BEGUM.
Ratio decidendi of all these rulings is that an agreement of sale would not create any interest in or charge of such property and the tenant of the premises would continue to be tenant until and unless relationship was determined by the % agreement, by decree of Court or by operation of law.
Hence although the respondent has challenged the very existence of the agreement but even if it was accepted for the sake of arguments that an agreement of sale was in existence still the appellant was bound to pay rent.
7. It will not be out of place to mention that for my moral satisfaction I had gone through the disputed receipt of Rs.10,00,000/- and the disputed sale agreement. These documents arc only pholo-stat copies. The original receipt and original sale agreement have not been produced by the appellants up to now. Th amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- is said to have been paid in cash which is not believable on the face of it. The signatures of the respondent's attorney on the stamp of the receipt appeared to be a camera-trick, whereas his signatures on the agreement is in a shaky had. Both these documents, therefore, appear to be forged documents.
8. I therefore do not find any merit in this F.R.A, and dismiss the same. At the same time I direct the appellants to show-cause under Section 476 Cr.P.C, as to why they should not be punished for forgery. To come up on 17-3-191.