' The appellants, who are the legal representatives of late Mrs. S. Murad Ahmed, landlady of House No, 170/15, Dastagir Society, F.B. Area, Karachi have impugned the order dated 10-2-1987, whereby Rent Case No, 253/85 filed by the said deceased was dismissed. The said rent case was filed on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide use. During the proceedings in the said rent case, the appellants had sent a notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to the respondent. The respondent has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and on this question, the appellants led evidence but the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. He, therefore, dismissed the rent application and hence this appeal.
2. It may be briefly stated here that as per the version of the appellants, in the year 1972 the respondent was inducted as care-taker/licensee in respect of the premises in question by the deceased landlady Mrs. S. Murad Ahmed. However, in the year 1975 the respondent managed with one Mst. Nahid Zia to create tenancy by paying self imposed rent at Rs, 150 per month to her. The said Mst. Nahid Zia was neither an attorney of the deceased nor was empowered in any manner to collect the said rent. In fact the deceased had prohibited her to collect rent from the respondent.
Subsequently, the deceased approached Martial Law Authorities and obtained ejectment against the respondent, which was challenged by him before the High Court. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed and the parties were relegated to the same position. It is further alleged that subsequently the tenancy was created between the deceased and the respondent, but respondent had failed to pay rent w.e.f, 1-12-1976 to 30-11-1984 at the said rate of Rs, 150 per month, amounting to Rs, 12,400.
3. The respondent in his written statement has denied the relationship stating that he was a licensee and not tenant. It is admitted by him that he has been paying Rs, 150 per month to said Mst. Nahid Zia, which was towards the use and occupation of the premises as licensee.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant brought to my notice the written statement filed by the respondent in Suit No, 2070/80 filed by the deceased landlady against him for ejectment in which the respondent has taken up the plea that he was a tenant of plaintiff's son and had been paying rent to him. It is further averred that in view of such relationship the suit was not maintainable and any order of his eviction would be without jurisdiction. Further reference was made to written statement filed by the respondent in the Rent Case No, 253/85 in which the respondent has changed his stand stating that he was put in possession of the premises as care-taker by the said Mst. Nahid Zia who was charging Rs, 150 per month towards occupation charges. It was thus contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that on the basis of admission made by him in the said Suit No, 2070/80 and the plea taken by him in the rent case, it is clear that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between him and the deceased landlady.
5. Mr. Rehanul Hassan Farooqui, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, contended before me that the record will establish beyond any doubt that as per the averments made by the deceased landlady and the appellants, no such relationship ever existed. My attention was first drawn to the evidence of Mr. Idrees Kazmi, attorney and son-in-law of the deceased landlady, who, in his examination-in-chief, has reiterated the various allegations made in the rent application but in cross-examination he has admitted that after the death of the said landlady, no separate power of attorney was given to him by the legal representatives of the deceased, who are appellants herein. According to him, the deceased was first a licensee/care-taker but afterwards he became a tenant. In cross-examination, it is admitted by him that neither the deceased landlady nor her L.Rs had given the authority to said Mst. Nahid Zia to collect rent from the respondent who also never paid rent either to the deceased or her legal representatives. The appellants have also produced Syed Shahid Ahmed Naqvi, who is one of the appellants and the son of the deceased landlady. He has reiterated the various averments made in the ejectment application, but in his cross-examination he categorically states that his mother never gave premises to respondent on rent. It has also been denied by him that he rented out the premises to the respondent as alleged.
He has also denied that he is the original owner of the demised premises.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent also brought to my notice (Ex.C) produced by the appellants which is counter-affidavit in F.R.A. No, 1002/80 filed in April, 1984, in para 4 thereof the deceased landlady had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the respondent. It was thus urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that it was for the landlord to prove beyond any doubt that relationship of landlord and tenant exists but in the present case this relationship is rebutted by the landlord's own evidence. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on 1983 SCM R 1064, PLD 1985 Kar. 419, 1982 CLC 922 and 1984 CLC 916.
The contentions raised by the learned counsel are on the basis of record and I fully agree with him that the appellants' case is rebutted by their own evidence. In view of the position enumerated above, there is no merit in the appeal which I hereby dismiss with costs.