1. ' The respondent filed an application for ejectment of the appellant under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the ground that he has retired from service and requires the premises for his personal requirement. The appellant pleaded that he was the tenant of the premises in dispute, but on 11-6-1983 he purchased it from the respondent and paid Rs,40,000 to him and the balance of Rs,40,000 was to be paid after deducting the entire expenses. The appellant has also filed a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement against the respondent. The respondent has denied that the has sold the property to the appellant. He has denied his signature on the receipt dated 11-6-1983 which is the basis of the claim of the appellant.
2. He has also denied his signature on the letters which are alleged to have been written by the respondent from which it seems that he had agreed to sell the house to the appellant. In spite of the fact that the respondent had denied the signature on these material documents none of the parties have applied for examination of the disputed documents by any handwriting expert. The learned Controller was of the view that as the appellant has admitted the tenancy it was his duty to produce sufficient evidence in support of his plea and further that no witnesses were produced in support of his version. The learned Controller further observed that the appellant has failed to produce any agreement. It may however be observed that the appellant had examined witnesses.
3. ' The basis of the appellant's case is the receipt dated 11-6-1983 which is reproduced as follows:-- "RECEIPT. Dt.11 June, 1983. Received a sum of Rs,40,000 (Rupees Forty thousands only) in cash from Mr. Khushnood Hussain son of Mahmood Hussain, Muslim, adult, resident of A-250, Korangi Market No,6, Karachi as part payment due to sale agreement entered between us in respect of a house bearing No,A-250 Korangi, Market No,6, Karachi which I have sold him out in a total consideration of Rs,80,000 (Rupees Eighty thousand only). The remaining balance of Rs,40,000 (Rupees Forty thousand only) shall be payable to me by Mr. Khushnood Hussain (Purchaser) after deducting the entire expenses borne of shall be borne by Mr. Khushnood Hussain over all the legal proceedings initiated/instituted or pending in the Court of Law regarding the aforesaid House, now in his possession as a purchaser.
4. WITNESSES: (Sd.) Malik Nisar Ahmad son of Haji Khalil Ahmed, resident of Islamabad, (Capital)
5. Pakistan.
(1) (Sd.) Abdul Wall, Qrt.No,256/A, Korangi No,6, Karachi-31. N.I.C.No,521-27-121578.
(2) (Sd.) Aijaz Ahmad, Qrt.No,A/256, Korangi Karachi-6. N.I.C.No,521-26- 289866.
(3) Thumb-impression of Abdul Latif Qureshi, A/252, Korangi, Karachi-6."
6. ' A perusal of this receipt will show that it refers to a sale agreement entered into between the parties in respect of the disputed house. It gives total consideration of Rs,80,000 and also recites payment of Rs,40,000 and the remaining balance of Rs,40,000 payable after deducting the entire expenses over the legal proceedings pending in the Court of Law regarding the aforestated house.
7. These proceedings relate to criminal matters which were pending at that time. Admittedly no sale agreement has been produced. The witnesses attesting the signature of the respondent have been produced who have testified that it was executed in their presence. The signature is also attested by a Notary Public but there is nothing on this receipt to show that the respondent was identified by any Advocate or that he was personally known to the Notary Public.
8. ' Mr. Iqbal Qadri the learned counsel for the respondent has further pointed out that there is an interpolation in the receipt in the last line. After the word 'house' the fullstop has been changed into coma and the words "in his possession as purchaser" have been added afterwards. According to the learned counsel this change was made with a view to claim right of part performance. A close scrutiny of the original document filed before the Controller which is at page 181 of the Controller's record will show a coma but fullstop is also visible. The words quoted above and underlined which are alleged to have been added afterwards do not seem to be in line with the words preceding these words. It seems clear that these words were added afterwards otherwise if it would have been written at the same time it would have been in the line with the preceding words. This discrepancy in the receipt is sufficient to cast doubt upon the genuineness of the additional words inserted in it. It seems significant that by inserting these words, the situation in the case can completely be overturned. If these words would not have occurred in this receipt allegedly executed by the respondent, the appellant would not have been entitled to claim possession in part performance of the agreement and the tenancy would not have ceased to exist, nor the appellant would have been entitled to stop payment of rent. Therefore, for the purposes of this rent case in my view these words were added afterwards, merely to avoid any ejectment.
9. ' The appellant has relied on a letter dated 17th December, 1986 in which the respondent had requested for some money as his daughter was to be married and had promised that he would get the sale-deed registered in appellant's name. The respondent has denied that this letter was written by him. He has produced copy of another letter dated 17th December in which he had informed that he has retired in February and therefore, the appellant should vacate the house. This letter is written in Urdu and the writing in both these letters is different from each other. As the appellant has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement, I do not feel it necessary to make any comment on this document as they will be subjected to proof before the Civil Court and any observation at this stage is likely to cause prejudice to either party. However, for the purposes of this ejectment application I would restrict only to the fact that even if for argument sake it is admitted that the receipt was executed by the respondent (which has been disputed by him), the appellant did not have any right to stop payment of rent nor the tenancy had ceased to exist. Mr. Younis Nadim the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the following authorities:- ' 1989 CLC 2390, 1984 CLC 2908, 1980 CLC 1442, PLD 1978 Kar. 182, PLD (sic) Kar. 398 and 1988 CLC 402 in support of his contention that on the basis of receipt and plead of part performance ejectment cannot be ordered.
10. ' On the other hand Mr. M. Iqbal Qadri has referred to 1984 SCM R 741, 1986 CLC 2577, 1976 SCM R 141, 1987 CLC 1149, PLD 1989 SC 575 and PLD 1990 SC 382 to support his contention that where the terms of agreement do not contain any stipulation about delivery of possession or continuation of possession in performance of the agreement to sell, the status would not change and possession of the tenant could not be said to be in part performance of the agreement so as to give protection against ejectment. In this regard reference can be made to 1983 SCM R 1064 and PLD 1985 SC 1.
11. Applying the principles enunciated in the aforestated judgments of the Supreme Court as the words "now in his possession as purchaser" were prima facie added in the receipt afterwards with a view to claim immunity from ejectment the appellant has prima fade failed to establish right as owner of the property or any right in the immovable property. I am of the further view that the tenancy did not cease to exist on execution of the receipt and that the appellant was liable to pay rent.
12. ' As this is a case under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance the main point for consideration is whether relationship of landlord and tenant existed. According to the appellant it does not exist but prima facie he has failed to establish it. In these circumstances in my view the order of ejectment should be maintained. I may clarify that the observations made in this appeal shall not in any manner affect the proceedings in suit filed by the appellant for specific performance of the agreement. Both the learned counsel state that the learned trial Court has issued an order of injunction against the respondent not to eject the appellant. Although the appeal is being dismissed the respondent would not eject the appellant during the operation of order of injunction or if the suit is decreed. The appellant is directed to deposit rent in Court @, of Rs,100 p.m. Till the suit filed by him is disposed of. With these observations the appeal is dismissed. /Order accordingly.