1. ' The respondent/applicant filed Rent Case No,81 of 1994 stating that he had filed Rent Case No,245 of 1989 which was allowed as per order, dated 13-7-1992. The opponent/appellant filed First Rent Appeal No,388 of 1992 which was decided on 27-11-1993. It was held that the applicant/landlord can file fresh case after making full compliance of the provisions of section 18 of Ordinance. On 12-12- 1993 the applicant/respondent gave a notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, through T.C.S. Dated 20-12-1993. The rented premises was of area of 90 sq yds., Block-10, Liaquatabad, Karachi. The applicant/respondent further stated that the opponent/appellant was in possession of bigger portion of the said house and the smaller portion was with applicant/respondent where applicant/respondent resided with his large family. The smaller portion was previously in possession of another man on monthly rent of Rs,65 but after purchase of the said property by applicant/respondent, the said tenant vacated it and handed over its physical possession to the applicant/respondent looking to bona fide personal requirement of applicant/respondent. The opponent/appellant had promised to vacate his portion but he did not do so, and, therefore, Rent Case No,245/1989 was filed against him. The opponent/appellant was a defaulter in payment of rent and had also misused the rented portion by running a Shoe Factory in it although it is residential one. It was also mentioned in rent case that the applicant respondent required the rented portion for his personal use and occupation as he was residing in the smaller portion of the same house.
2. ' The appellant/opponent had filed Written Statement in the said rent case and stated that the previous Rent Case No,245/1989 was allowed vide order, dated 13-7-1992 but First Rent Appeal No,388 of 1992 was filed by opponent/appellant which was decided in his favour. The notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, dated 12th December, 1993 was not in knowledge of opponent/appellant. The appellant/opponent further stated that the premises in question was in possession of opponent/appellant since long from the days of old landlord. The opponent/appellant deposited the rent in Miscellaneous Rent Case No,562 of 1990 because rent was refused by the landlord. He is making regular payments of monthly rent for the premises in question in the Miscellaneous Rent Case No,562 of 1990. The premises has not been used for any other purpose excepting residing. It has not been used as Shoe Factory. The allegations against opponent/appellant were false and baseless. The applicant/respondent had another accommodation and, he with his family members was residing in it. Sui gas and Electricity Bills were paid by opponent/appellant.
3. ' The learned Senior Civil Judge, Central Karachi vide his order, dated 31-5-1995 allowed the application and he directed the opponent/appellant to vacate the premises and hand over possession within 60 days. Against this order present appeal has been filed.
4. ' Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the provision of section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, has not been complied with. The respondent claimed to be the owner of premises but his title documents are questionable. The lower Court had relied on unverified title documents. There was nothing on record to show that he became owner of the property.
5. ' Learned advocate for respondent submitted that the appellant was a defaulter. The notice as required under the law has been served. The premises in question were required by respondent for his personal bona fide use as he was occupying smaller portion of the same premises. The bigger portion was with appellant. He relied on decisions reported in 1982 SCM R 576, 1987 CLC 333, and 1984 M LD 46.
6. ' The learned Rent Controller on point of notice has given the finding as under:--- "In fact no any registered documents regarding ownership of the applicant has been produced or filed in this case but from the perusal of Judgment of Hon'ble High Court in First Rent Appeal No,388 of 1992 it reveals that conveyance deed was executed in favour of the applicant, dated 5-12-1989.
7. In the circumstances it is sufficient to say that the applicant is the owner/landlord of the premises as claimed by the applicant in ejectment application and affidavit in evidence so far the issuance of notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance and service of the same the applicant has taken plea that he has .Issued required notice, dated 12-12-1993 to the opponent and served the same to him through T.C.S. In this respect a copy of the notice, dated 12-12-1993 and receipt of T.C.S. Has been produced by the applicant alongwith his affidavit in evidence. On this issue the case of the opponent is that no any notice was issued by the opponent and served to him but when applicant was in witness box for the cross-examination on the facts stated by him in affidavit he was not cross-examined by the opponent for issuance and service of the notice. The applicant in affidavit-in-evidence has specifically stated that he has given notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance to the opponent this conduct of the opponent amounts to admission of the facts stated by the opponent. Moreover in the judgment in First Rent Appeal No,388 of 1992 it is disclosed that conveyance deed in favour of the applicant was executed on 5- 12-1989. Naturally even after announcement of above judgment opponent was in knowledge that the property has been transferred to the name of the present applicant and who is (sic) become owner and landlord of the property which is sufficient information to the opponent regarding change of the ownership. Even the opponent has not challenged the validity of notice, dated 12-12-1993 and T.C.S. Receipts produced by the applicant in cross-examination and also in his affidavit-in-evidence he has not made allegation that these documents are forged documents.
8. In above all circumstances I am reached on the conclusion that the required notice was issued and served to the opponent hence instant issue answered in affirmative."
9. ' The respondent/applicant had filed affidavit-in-evidence and in cross-examination he stated, "disputed house was purchased by him from Rasheed Sahab and it is a fact that he had not produced sale-deed regarding disputed property in the Court but voluntarily stated that on next date of hearing he will produce the same". The appellant/opponent did not insist on production of sale-deed and now at appellate stage he cannot say that the applicant/respondent did not produce the sale-deed. In para. 6 of his affidavit-in-evidence the respondent/applicant stated as under:- "That, in compliance with the judgment, dated 27-11-1993 passed in First Rent Appeal No,388 of 1992 by the Hon'ble Court of Sindh at Karachi, I have given notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, to the opponent. I produce herewith a copy of notice, dated 12-12-1993 alongwith Postal Receipt No,1894, dated 15-12-1993 and T.C.S. Receipt No,10276691, dated 22-12- 1993."
10. ' As against this, appellant/opponent stated in his affidavit-in-evidence as under: "That, I say that even in the present rent case up to the last hour no notice was received or sent by the applicant to the deponent/opponent and if so nothing is in the knowledge of opponent."
11. The statement of applicant/respondent is supported by three documents i,e,,
1. Postal Receipt No,1894,
2. Notice, dated 12-12-1993 and 3, T.C.S. Receipt No,10276691, dated 22-12-1993. Mere denial by opponent/appellant cannot controvert the statement of applicant/respondent especially when his statement is supported by three documents. Therefore, the argument of appellant has no force.
12. On the point of default, it is the arguments of learned Advocate for the respondent that according to opponent/appellant he was depositing rent in Miscellaneous Rent Case No,562 of 1990 but no receipt was produced to show as to in, whose name rent was being deposited. Even after service of notice neither rent was tendered nor paid to applicant/respondent, and, therefore, the appellant is a defaulter. The opponent/appellant in his affidavit-in-evidence in para. 4 has stated as under:--- "That, I say that the tenancy in connection with the alleged property was taken by the opponent from the old owner and not from the present applicant."
13. The opponent/appellant is specific that there was an old owner. Indirectly he concedes that the respondent/applicant is the new owner but has made no attempt to pay rent to him. Even on ground of personal bona fide use the applicant/respondent has stated in his affidavit-in-evidence that he was residing in a smaller portion of the house alongwith his dependents and he required the rented portion for his personal use. The applicant/respondent has, therefore, proved that he requires the premises in question for his personal bona fide use. The appellant has not been able to make out a case which may justify disturbing the finding of lower Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.