' The respondent filed application for ejectment of the appellant under section 15 of Sindh Rented.
Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979) from flat constructed on first floor, of Plot No,SA-40, Block-B, Karachi Administration Employees Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi on the ground of default in payment of rent from March, 1992 to June, 1992 as well as personal bona fide requirement.
2. In the written statement it was specifically stated that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Accordingly, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues for determination:--
(1) Whether, the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?
(2) Whether the opponent has defaulted in making the payment of rent?
(3) Whether the premises is required for personal bona tides use of the appellant.
(4) "
3. From the side of respondent, she filed her affidavit-in-evidence and two more witnesses also filed their affidavits in evidence. They were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the appellant, but the appellant himself did not file any affidavit-in-evidence. Ultimately the learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application. Hence this First Rent Appeal of 1995 under section 21 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
4. The record shows that after the respondent closed her side, ample opportunity was given to the appellant to lead evidence but no affidavit-in-evidence was filed. Even in the memo. Of appeal it has been mentioned that this happened due to misunderstanding. I have carefully examined the contents of affidavits-in-evidence of respondent and her witnesses, including the cross- examination. No question at all was put in the cross-examination challenging the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This point has also been noted by the learned Rent Controller in the impugned order. She has also rightly observed that the evidence of the respondent has gone unchallenged on the other two points. Today Mr. A. Hameed Wyne, made statement that Mr. Abid Hameed Puri learned counsel for the appellant has gone to Lahore for some work. But it may be stated that this date was given to the learned counsel for the appellant on his own request. Therefore, he was aware of the fixation of this case. Be that as it may. After having gone through the entire record and the evidence, I find that the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller is just and proper. No effort at all was even made by the appellant to get the impugned order required by the learned Rent Controller. Consequently, this appeal being without substance is dismissed.