1. ' These two First Rent Appeals NosA35 and 436 are directed against two orders dated 8-5-1986 of IIIrd Sr. Civil Judge & Rent Controller, Karachi (South).
2. ' The facts are that Rent Cases Nos.904 and 905 of 1982 were filed by respondent Mst. Naheed Qureshi against Ghulam Muhammad and Khamiso on the ground of default in payment of rent from 1974 and personal bona fide use. To which written statement was filed by the appellants stating therein that they are the owners of the plot and in support they have produced the electricity bills, P.T.1 issued by the K.M.C. And Excise & Taxation receipts by which the taxes were paid as owner.
3. ' Before the Rent Controller the evidence was recorded. Both the appellants were examined and on the other hand, respondent Mst. Naheed Qureshi and her father Abdul Sattar were examined. The Rent Controller on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues.
(1) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?
(2) Whether the appellants failed to pay the rent to respondent as alleged?
(3) Whether the respondent requires the case premises for personal bona fide use?
(4) What should the order be?
4. ' He has decided all the issues against the appellants and directed them to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within 60 days of the order.
5. ' I have heard Mr. Ahsan Ali T. Khawaja for the appellants. It is contended by the learned counsel that respondent Mst. Naheed Qureshi is not the owner of the premises and by way of fraud she got the documents transferred through her father Abdul Sattar. He has also argued that there are mistakes in the documents of the Settlement Department and it has not been pinpointed as to which property belongs to the respondent. He has referred to the cases reported in 1983 CLC 2800, 1975 SCMR 372 and it is also contended by the learned counsel that service was not good as notice was not properly served on the appellants as the addresses were also wrongly mentioned on the envelopes.
6. ' Mr. Abdul Aziz, Advocate for the respondent argued that he has produced all the relevant documents in respect of the ownership of the property. It is contended by the learned counsel that she purchased this property by way of registered sale-deed from one Maki Ahmed allottee. It is submitted that both the appellants applied for the allotment in the year 1974/75 but their requests were rejected.
7. ' The appellants have denied the ownership of the respondent and the case of appellants is that they are living as a matter of their right as being owners for which they have been paying K.M.C.
8. Taxes and electricity bills since so many years. Photocopy of P.T.1 issued by the K.M.C. Was produced showing that they are owners. But appellants have not produced any allotment order by which the disputed premises were leased out by the K.M.C. Or examined any person from the department to show that they were owners. On the other hand Mst. Naheed Qureshi, produced true copies of the application of Ghulam Muhammad dated 12-6-1974 and application of Khamiso dated 18-3-1975 in which they prayed that House No,168-14 Old Baghdadi, Dhobi Gate Yousuf Haroon Road, Karachi be allotted to them. They were replied by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that their request cannot be accepted. Mr. Khawaja, submitted that these documents were not produced with the application therefore appellants cannot go beyond pleadings, it is suffice to say that affidavit-in-evidence of Naheed Qureshi the respondent was filed on 19-9-1982 while the affidavit-in-evidence was filed on 7-10-1984 by appellants and appellants were examined. They had the knowledge about the documents but in the rebuttal they have denied the genuineness of these documents which have been produced. Mst. Naheed Qureshi also produced a copy of sale-deed, transfer order and Sanad issued by Government of Sindh. The Rent Controller has rightly framed this issue of relaitonship and in view of the documentary evidence he has rightly decided that there exists relationship between the parties. It is an admitted position that rent has not been paid even after the institution of rent case. Mr. Khawaja has taken the plea that notice was not served but when the case was filed it was proper on his part to deposit the rent in Misc. Rent application to safeguard his right. Reliance is placed on a case of Hafiz Muzaffar Ahmed Khan v. Dr. Habibullah Haq and another reported in PLD 1968 SC 973 where it has been held that when person is denying relationship of landlord and it is proved and thus resulted in forfeiture of the tenancy. There are numbers of authorities on this point when relationship is admitted no further evidence is required on this. The Rent Controller has also decided the issue of personal bona fide requirement on the basis of evidence of respondent. In these circumstances when appellants have failed to deposit the rent. The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. Without prejudice to the merits of the case the appellants are granted one year's time to vacate the premises. There is common evidence of both appellants and similar point is involved therefore both the appeals are decided by this single judgment.