' This first rent appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 18-8-1999 passed in Rent Case No,475 of 1996 by VIth Rent Controller, Karachi East, whereby he allowed the ejectment application filed by the respondents and directed the appellant to hand over vacant possession of demised premises to the respondents within 60 days from the date of impugned order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are owners/landlords of building known as Madina Manzil and the appellant is tenant in the said premises at the rate of Rs,400 per month including maintenance charges. The appellant was also liable to pay water, electricity and gas charges. It was pleaded by the respondent in the ejectment application that the appellant failed to pay monthly rent with effect from September, 1993 till filing of the application. The charges were also levelled regarding the illegal construction raised by the appellant without permission of the respondents.
3. The opponent in the written statement stated that the application was not maintainable under the law and there was no valid cause of action for filing ejectment application. It was also pleaded that rate of rent was not Rs,400 but the same was Rs,160 per month including all other charges. It is stated that no notice under section 18 of Sindh,Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was served upon the appellant and the respondents were demanding enhanced rent from February, 1993 and on refusal of appellant the application was filed. It is stated that the appellant started depositing rent in Court from June, 1993 at the rate of Rs,160 per month in MRC No,287 of 1993. It was pleaded that he paid huge amount as goodwill at the time of taking demised premises on rent. The appellant denied from raising any illegal construction and impairing the material value of building thereby.
4. On the pleadings of the parties issues regarding default, illegal construction and the maintainability of ejectment application were framed by. The Rent Controller.
5. The parties led their evidence and ultimately Rent Controller came to the conclusion that appellant was the defaulter in payment of rent and passed the order to the effect stated above.
6. It is contended by Mr. M.A. Awan learned counsel for appellant that respondents are not the owners of the property and the property in question belongs to Government. It is contended that no default is committed and the learned Rent Controller has come to an erroneous decision holding that the appellant was defaulter. He stated that the appellant is depositing rent in Court in MRC No, 287 of 1993. It is stated that rent case is not filed against all the persons living in demised premises but the same was filed. Against the appellant only. Learned counsel has argued that the impugned order is illegal and without lawful authority and the rent application was not maintainable as the respondents were not the owners of the property. Reference is made to Ghulam Hyder v. Muhammad Haneef and others (PLD 1979 Karachi 167).
7. Mr. K.B. Bhutto learned counsel for respondent has contended that relationship of landlord and tenant between the party was not denied by the appellant in his written statement. Learned counsel has stated that in written statement, the appellant has taken the plea that respondents were demanding enhanced rent and therefore he started depositing rent at the rate of Rs,160.
Learned counsel has referred me to the receipts produced on record. The rent is deposited in the name of Haji Abdul Kareem. Learned counsel has stated that the written statement was filed by appellant only and none else from the inmates of the house. He has stated that the appeal is not maintainable as the same is filed by appellant Hyder and signed by him but the title shows the name of Imamuddin as appellant. The Vakalatnama of learned counsel for appellant is also signed by Hyder. The learned counsel stated that this is an illegality and appeal as preferred was not competent. It is contended that the respondents are the landlord and owner of the property and the appellant is tenant. He has paid the rent to them and has deposited the same in Court in their names but has failed to produce the rent receipts. It is stated that under the provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, it is the landlord who. Has to receive the rent. Reference is made to Babu and another v. Jalal Din and another (PLD 1992 SC 102).
8. The record shows that the appellant has paid the rent at the rate of Rs,160 and not Rs,400 as claimed by the landlords/respondents. One Hyder filed his affidavit-in-evidence who is brother of appellant but appellant did not appear himself to give his evidence. The said Hyder was not given any power-of-attorney by the opponent. Hyder P.W. Admitted in cross-examination that rent receipts were being issued in the name of his brother Imamuddin appellant. The appellant started depositing rent in Court in MRC No, 287 of 1993 for the first time on 15-7-1993. It is deposed by Hyder the borther of appellant that it was the rent for the month of January, 1993 and onwards.
9. The record of MRC was examined by Rent Controller who has discussed in details the period. The amount of Rs,320 was deposited by appellant in April, 1994, being the rent for the months of April and May. Thereafter, amount of Rs,640 was deposited on 16-8-1994 for the months of June, July and August. This mode of payment of rent cannot be approved as the default already stood committed. The rent for the months of June, July and August, 1994 was paid on 16-8-1994. The appellant is rightly held to be defaulter for the above reasons.
10. The appeal is not filed by appellant/opponent Imamuddin but the same is filed by his brother Hyder. The appellant/opponent was neither examined in Court nor he has filed the appeal. The appeal is not even filed through Hyder. In memo. Of appeal Imamuddin is shown appellant but he neither signed it nor verified it on oath, but in his place Hyder his brother has signed the memo. The Vakalatnama of Advocate is signed by Hyder. No authority from Imamuddin for filing the appeal has been placed on record. Even nowhere Hyder has stated that he has any authority from Imamuddin to file an appeal. Thus appeal cannot be treated to have been filed by Imamuddin against whom the impugned order is passed.
11. The arguments to the effect that respondents are not the owners of premises has no force as the appellant was paying rent to respondents and nowhere challenged it. No such issue of relationship is framed. The question of title to disputed property is not relevant for determining relationship of landlord and tenant. The case-law referred by counsel for appellant has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of instant case.
12. In view of above reasons, the appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed in limine alongwith listed applications with no order as to costs. The appellant/opponent is directed to hand over vacant possession of premises to respondent within 60 days from the date of this order.