' This First Rent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9-3-1992 passed by learned Vth Senior Civil Judge & R.C., Karachi East, ordering the ejectment of the appellant from Shop No,2 in building situated over Plot Nos. 779 and 780, commercial area, P.E.C.H. Society, Karachi.
2. Briefly stated the facts which lead to this appeal are, that late Mst. Mirat-ur-Ruqayya, the predecessor of the present respondents filed ejectment case against the appellant on the sole ground of subletting of the shop in question to Shaikh Siraj and Naseem without her consent. The appellant filed his written statement in denial of the allegation of subletting the said shop to the said persons. He further asserted that since he refused to the demand of enhancement of rent from Rs,800 to Rs,2,000 p.m. The present ejectment case is filed on false ground.
3. In support of their case the attorney of the applicants/respondents as well as one of the L.Rs, of the deceased landlady, namely Mst. Tanveer Waheed Kazi filed her affidavit-in-evidence, who was cross-examined; while the opponent/appellant filed his owner affidavit-in-evidence in support of his case and was cross-examined. The learned Rent Controller determined following points and passed the ejectment order against the appellant:--
(1) Whether opponent has sublet the demised shop to Shaikh Siraj and Muhammad Naseem without written consent of the applicant?
(2) What should the order be?
' It is pointed out that the above appeal was not proceeding for one or the other reason since 21-1- 1993 as such on 18-9-1994 when the adjournment was requested by Mr. Muhammad Ali Jan, learned Advocate for the appellant on his personal ground, Miss Rashida Siddiqa, learned Advocate for the respondents consented for adjournment being a final chance and in case there is any difficulty from the side of the Advocates to argue the matter on the next date of hearing they may file their written arguments, else this appeal will go for judgment, which was accepted by other side too. On 25-10-1994 learned Advocate for the appellant filed his written arguments and on 6-11-1994 the learned Advocate for the respondents also filed her written arguments.
5. I have gone through the record and the written arguments submitted by the learned advocates for the parties and the law cited therein.
6. In support of his case the appellant's advocate has cited (1) 1983 CLC 2871; (2) 1986 M LD 227; (3)
1993 SCM R 1163; (4) 1992 CLC 482; (5) 1993 CLC 1978; while the respondents' Advocate has cited (1)
1988 CLC 667. (2) 1987 M LD 1412; (3) 1987 CLC 981; (4) 1982 CLC 102; (5) 1986 M LD 917 (6) 1985 CLC 2632 and (7) 1982 CLC 555.
7. The authorities quoted by Mr. Muhammad Ali Jan, Advocate for the appellant are distinguishable for the simple reason that there is an evidence to show that Shaikh Siraj and Muhammad Naseem were exclusively in possession of the rented shop, having been inducted by the appellant at the rate of Rs,2,000 per month without the consent of the respondents; and that the said sub-lettees also deposited the monthly rent in Court by filing Miscellaneous Rent Case No,605 of 1986 on 7-8- 1986.
8. The learned Rent Controller has dealt with the point of subletting in detail and the learned advocate for the appellant could not be able to show any misreading of evidence on the record on his part. It is an admitted position that in the written statement or in his affidavit-in-evidence the appellant did not say a word about the presence or possession of the sub-lettees namely Shaikh Siraj and Muhammad Naseem, which fact was specifically pleaded by the respondents in their ejectment application. The appellant showed his ignorance about the said sub-letters but when the copy of their Miscellaneous Rent Case No,605/86 was filed in Court by the respondents, the appellant also filed copies of plaint filed by him against above said sub-lettees and application for compromise made therein; which falsify the appellant in his stand taken in the ejectment case. If the said sub-letters were the employees of the appellant, he should have said so in his written statement and they ought to have been examined by him in support of his said plea, but he failed to examine them in the Rent Case.
9. In view of the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the finding of the Rent Controller on the point of subletting is very reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court.
Consequent thereupon, I find no merit in the instant appeal, as such I have no option but to dismiss the same with no order as to costs.