1. ' This F.RA. Is directed against the order of Ist Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi West, dated 13-5-1991.
2. ' Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this F.RA. Are as under:-- ' Respondent Muhammad Din is owner of house in dispute. He had rented out the same to the appellant on monthly rent of Rs,300. The appellant did not pay any rent to the respondent from May, 1989 till 25-4-1990 when the rent case was filed and prayer for ejectment was made. It was additionally pleaded that the respondent was living in rented house. His family consisted of 12 members and some of his children were grown up. Hence he required the house is dispute for his bona fide personal use.
3. ' The appellant contested the case and filed a written statement. He admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant as well as the rate of rent. He, however, denied that there was any default or that the house was required for bona fide personal use. The learned Controller, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the appellant was wilful defaulter. He also held that the respondent required the house in dispute for his bona fide personal use. Hence he ordered the appellant to vacate the house in dispute within 60 days. The appellant filed F.RA.
4. No,582/1990 against the said order. The F.RA. Was admitted and interim stay was granted. This Court, however, vacated the interim stay by order dated 2-4-1991. The case was taken up for regular hearing on 14-4-1991. On this date the appellant and his counsel remained absent and it was also brought to the notice of this Court that the rent was not deposited as directed. Hence F.RA.
5. No,582/1990 was dismissed for non-prosecution. Accordingly the learned Controller proceeded with the execution application filed by the respondent. The appellant moved an objection petition on the ground that one Mirza Talib Hussain has issued a notice to him and has asked him to pay the rent to him., as the respondent has agreed to sell the house in question, to him. The application was rejected by the learned Controller and writ of possession was also issued. Against the said order this F.R.A. Has been I have heard Mr. Abdul Rashid, learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant having admitted relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent and having lost the ejectment case before the Controller as well as in the F.R.A. Has now no legs to stand upon.
6. Moreover, according to Explanation under section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, such an agreement cannot be set up until and unless the same is made before or with the permission of the Controller. The relevant provision reads as under:- "Explanation:-In the execution proceedings relating to the order of ejectment, no payment, compromise or agreement shall be valid unless such payment, compromise or agreement is made before or with the permission of the authority passing the order."
7. ' The possibility of the agreement and the notice, being concocted and forged, cannot be ruled out.
8. It was with a view to discourage such documents that the above amendment in section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance was made by adding the Explanation referred to above.
9. ' I, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine.