1. ' Appellants/opponents have challenged the impugned order, dated 5-4-2000, passed by 1st Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Mirpurkhas in Rent Application No,2 of 2000, whereby the appellants have been directed to hand over the vacant possession of suit premises within 30 days after passing the said order, dated 5-4-2000. Hence this appeal.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that respondent/applicant Mst. Mubena Begum purchased Plot No,3/29 Lalchandabad, Mirpurkhas area 1820 sq. Ft. Through registered Sale-Deed No, 1861, dated 29-4-1985 for consideration of Rs,18,200 and raised construction thereon consisting of two rooms with other amenities. The respondent/ applicant has been living with her family in another house at some distance from the suit premises. Through a General Power of Attorney alongwith her elder daughter Qamarun Nisa the respondent/applicant on her behalf and as a guardian of her 10 minor children and all the family members authorized Qamaruddin to manage her properties situated at different places alongwith other business. The power of attorney was registered vide No,22 on 5-2-1984, with Sub-Registrar, Mirpurkhas. In March, 1997, Qamaruddin with permission of respondent/applicant allowed the appellants/ opponents to use and occupy the suit premises for about a year and consequently they were put in possession thereof. The respondent/ applicant and other children were not satisfied with the management of their properties by Qamaruddin. They informed Qmaruddin about revocation/cancellation of power of attorney and such notice was got published in Jurrat Karachi, dated 10-7-1997. After a year the appellants/opponents were asked to vacate the suit premises but they failed to vacate the same. Differences developed between respondent/applicant and her family members with Qamaruddin and relations between them became strained. The respondentiapplicant also filed F.C. Suit No,47 of 1999 for possession, mesne profits and injunction against the appellants/opponents. The appellants/opponents filed written statement in the said suit claiming that they were rented out the suit premises by Qamaruddin at Rs,700 per month and that they are paying said monthly rent to Qamaruddin, they also produced three rent receipts issued by Qmaruddin. The suit was thereupon withdrawn by the respondent/applicant. Thereafter, the respondent/applicant being landlady filed Rent Application with a prayer (a) to direct the appellants/opponents to vacate the suit premises and put respondent/ landlady in vacant possession thereof, (b) direct the appellants/opponents to pay the respondent/applicant the rent of the suit premises from October 1999, onwards at Rs,700 per month till they vacate the same and put the respondent/landlady in vacant possession thereof, (c) award costs of the proceedings to the respondent/landlady, (d) grant any other relief to which the respondent/applicant is entitled under the circumstances of the case.
3. ' Appellants/opponents were served and both the appellants/opponents filed written reply in which they have denied the allegations and claims of the respondents/landlady and submitted that they have obtained the disputed house from one Qamaruddin on rent at Rs,700 per month and they are paying rent to the Qamaruddin regularly. They further mentioned that neither they have obtain* the house on rent from respondent/landlady amr they are her tenants, hence there is no relationship of landlady and tenants between the parties. The rent application has no merits and is liable to be dismissed.
4. ' Respondent/landlady has examined her witness. Fakhre Alam at Exh.9, respondent/landlady examined herself at Exh.10 and produced Extract at Exh.10-A, original general power of attorney at Exh.10-B, Acknowledgment receipts at Exhs.10-C and 10-D, Publication in newspaper Jurrat Karachi, dated 10-7-1997 at Exh.10-E and notice, dated 30-11-1999 at Exh.10-F, witness No,2, thereafter, Advocate for the respondent/landlady closed the side at Exh.11.
5. ' Appellant/Opponent No,2, Maqbool has examined himself at Exh.12 and produced one rent receipt at Exh.12-A. He has also examined his witness Khalil Ahmed Qureshi at Exh.13, thereafter, the Advocate for the appellants/opponents closed their side as per statement at Exh.14.
6. ' The learned Rent Controller formulated the following points for determination:---
(1) Whether relationship of landlady and tenant is in existence?
(2) Whether the landlady ha required the disputed house for her sons personal bona fide use?
(3) Whether the opponents are defaulters?
(4) What should the order be?
7. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence adduced by them, the learned Rent Controller passed the orders in terms as stated above.
8. ' Mr. Riaz Ahmed Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellants/opponents at the very outset has raised objection that there is no relationship between the parties as landlady and tenants and has submitted that Fakhre Alam who is the son of the respondent/landlady in cross-examination has admitted that he is not the owner of the suit premises. He has also admitted that he has not given the said house to opponent Maqbool on rent. He has also admitted that there is dispute between him and Qamaruddin. The main object of the learned counsel for the appellants/ opponents is that the respondent/landlady is not the owner ..Of the said property and no relationship existed between the parties as landlady and tenants and he has not argued on the issues involved in the matter.
9. ' Mr. Jhamat Jethanand, on the other hand has submitted that the Family Court suit was filed which was pending between the parties where the appellants/opponents have admitted the present respondent/applicant as landlady and he has drawn my attention on the evidence of Mst. Mubena landlady and has submitted that nothing has been extracted from the mouth of said Mst. Mubena that she is not the landlady of the premises in question. He has further submitted that the landlady/respondent has not only examined herself but her son, copy of extract, power of attorney, two receipts of A/D, copy of newspaper, copy of notice. She has stated in her evidence that she is the owner of the disputed house. She has further stated that she and her elder daughter Qamarun Nisa and on behalf of other children authorized their general attorney to Qamaruddin to manage their properties including agricultural land and Urban properties situated at different places including the suit house. She has further mentioned that in the year 1997, her eldest son and Qamarduddin who was attorney sought permission from her to give the suit premises to appellants/opponents and she allowed such permission and consequently the appellants/opponents were put in possession of the suit house. She has further stated that in the beginning of 1997, out of 10 minor children excepting 2, have attained majority and being dissatisfied revoked/cancelled power of attorney, dated 5-2-1984. They not only informed Qamaruddin all such cancellation but also through registered letters informed the Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad Mirptirkhas and Mukhtiarkar Mirpurkhas.
10. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case and I have also gone very carefully to the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court.
11. It is established from the material available on record that the respondent is landlady of the appellants/opponents being owner of disputed house and the same is required by her for her and her children for personal use and the appellants/oppoaents are also defaulters. The appellants/opponents have not been able to disprove that the respondent is not the landlady of the premises in question and so also default is proved from the record and proceedings and material available on record and landlady has been able to prove her personal bona fide need for the suit .Premises in question. I am of the considered view that the appellants/opponents have miserably failed 40 make out their case and the present appeal bags no merits and. I am not inclined to interfere with face impugned order, dated 5-4-2000 passed by the Rent Controller, Mirpurkhas. In result the appeal is dismissed. Appellants/opponents are given six (6) months' time to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises in question to the respondent.