SYED ABDUR RAHMAN, J.- This appeal is directed against the order of lst. Senior Civil Judge and, Rent Controller, Karachi dated .4-5-1991 whereby he directed the appellant and respondent No.2 to vacate the rented premises in question and hand over i(s vacant possession to respondent No. 1 within 30 days.
2. Respondent No. 1 had filed ejectment application against respondent No.2 and the appellant, It was .Alleged that the disputed premises was given by respondent No.1 on rent to .Respondent No.2 at Rs35.25 per month. Respondent had defaulted in payment of rent w.e. Form 1-7-1984. Besides she had also sublet the premises to the appellant without the consent of respondent No. 1 and had herself shifted to a flat, two miles away from the rented premises. Hence she was liable for ejectment. It was, therefore, prayed that both the opponents. Be directed to vacate the premises and give its possession to respondent No.1. Respondent No. 2 filed written-statement wherein she admitted relationship of landlord and tenant between herself and respondent No. 1, but denied that she had defaulted in payment of rent. She alleged that she had paid rent up to September, 1984.
Thereafter she tendered the rent for October, November and December, 1984 by pay order and on refusal of respondent No.1 to receive the same started depositing the same in Court. She also denied the allegation of subletting the premises to the appellant and alleged that he was accommodated by respondent No.1 himself.
3. The appellant also filed Written-Statement wherein he admitted the case of respondent No.1 that he was subletee of respondent No.2 without the permission of respondent No. 1 and that he had no more concern with the rented premises. Thereafter another written-statement was filed by the appellant through another Advocate alongwith an application under Section 12(2) CPC. In that written-statement he pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and respondent No.1, because respondent No. 1 had sold the premises to Syed Razi Ahmad. He also denied that he was sub-tenant of respondent No. 2 and alleged that he was residing there since 1957.
4. In the application under section 12(2) CPC, it was prayed that the previous written-statement should be removed from the record, while this new written-statement should be taken on record.
Respondent No.1 contested the said application and counter-affidavit and rejoinder were filed. The previous Advocate Mr. Muhammad Saleem was examined in Court and was cross-examined by the appellant's latter counsel Mr. Mumtaz Ahmad Shaikh. Mr. Mohammad Saleem stated that the first written-statement was filed by him on the instructions given by the appellant and that the appellant had signed his Vakalatnama as well as the written-statement. Thereafter the appellant's second Advocate Mr. Mumtaz Ahmad Shaikh also remained absent and therefore, the application under section 12(2) CPC was dismissed for non-prosecution. The second written-statement was removed from the record, while the first written-statement was maintained. Respondent No. 1 filed affidavit-in-evidence of his Attorney Syed Razi Ahmed. Respondent No.2 did not file any affidavit, nor cross-examined Syed Razi Ahmad on his Affidavit. The Appellant, however, filed his affidavit and cross-examined Razi Ahmed. Thereafter two applications were made by the appellant for recalling the witness of respondent No.1 for cross-examination, but the same were dismissed.
5. I have heard Mr. Mumtaz Ahmad Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Abdul Muqtadir Khan, Advocate for respondent No.2 and Mr. Ghulam Ali Khokhar Advocate for respondent No.1.
6. In view of the admissions made by him in the first written-statement, which has remained on record, the appellant has no case whatsoever. His application under Sec. 12(2) CPC was dismissed for non-prosecution. He did not take any steps for restoration of the said application. Even on merits he has no case. His second written-statement also does not make out any ground for defending the ejectment application. Respondent No.2 did not f% any affidavit in [(missing Text)] Ahmed, the Attorney and witness of respondent No.1. He was unable to show any ground on which he could defend the ejectment application. The learned Controller has in his well discussed order given cogent reasons for holding that respondent No.2 has committed default in payment of rent and has sub-let the premises to the appellant without the consent of Respondent No.1. I, therefore, do not find any justification for interfering with the findings of the learned Controller. The F.R.A, is therefore, dismissed.