' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner through his father and attorney filed a rent application before the Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi (South) alleging that the respondent had committed default in payment of rent and had also made alterations in the demised premises, thus, imparing their value and utility. The rent as per agreement dated 28-7-1986, had been fixed as Rs,4,400 per month which was subsequently enhanced to Rs,6,000 per month.
2. The application was resisted by the respondent who disputed the relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties. The other allegations were also denied.
3. The learned Controller after determining the preliminary issue in favour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner was the landlord of the premises and the respondent was his tenant, allowed the said application directing the respondent to vacate the premises.
4. The respondent filed appeal before the High Court of Sindh which was dealt with by the learned Judge in Chambers and the order of the Rent Controller was set aside as it was held by the learned Judge that no relationship of the landlord and the tenant existed between the parties.
5. Admittedly, the tenancy agreement had been executed by Muhammad Ishaque, the father of the petitioner as the landlord of the premises, who had subsequently filed the rent application as attorney of the petitioner. The learned Judge in Chambers was, therefore, of the view that even if the petitioner was the real owner of the premises there was no privity of contract between him and the respondent and consequently the petitioner had no locus standi to file the ejectment application.
6. Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that notwithstanding the fact that the tenancy agreement had been executed by Muhammad Ishaque, the father of the petitioner, nevertheless, the same cannot detract from the fact that the petitioner is the real owner of the property in question and, therefore, the landlord in respect of the demised premises.
Consequently, according to the learned counsel, the learned Judge in Chambers was in error while dismissing the petitioner's application on the said technical ground.
7. Leave is granted to examine whether the view taken by the learned Judge in Chambers was correct under the circumstances of the case.