1. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are that an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was filed by Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (Pvt.) Limited/respondent. No,3 against petitioner A.T.A. Ghumro seeking his ejectment from Flat No,18, PIDC Officers Flats situated at Bath Island, Karachi alongwith Servant Quarter No,45 on the grounds of default and personal bona fide use of its serving officers. The case of the respondent No,3 as disclosed in the ejectment application is that the flat in question alongwith servant quarter (hereinafter referred as "demised premises") was allotted/let out to the petitioner at the rent of Rs,4,250 per month excluding electric, gas and telephone bills being an employee of respondent- corporation at the relevant time. On his retirement in the year 1992 the petitioner was required to vacate the demised premises for being allotted/let out to some other serving officer. Through his letter dated 7-9-1992 petitioner requested for one year's time to vacate the demised premises but despite expiry of the said period he failed to vacate the same. The petitioner was also a chronic defaulter which is evident from the fact that even the last payment of rent for the months of February, March and April, 1997 was made by him on 22-5-1997 through a cheque for Rs,19,128 after repeated requests and demands. Ultimately the respondent-corporation through its counsel served a legal notice dated 25-5-1997 upon the petitioner directing him to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises but no heed was paid by the petitioner. It, was under these circumstances that ejectment application was filed in the Court of learned Sindh Rent Controller, Karachi (South)/respondent No,2.
2. In his written statement, petitioner stated that the demised premises was allotted to him at a rent of Rs,4.250 per month as he was in service at that time. Extension sought by him for one year to vacate the demised premises was not denied and it was categorically pleaded that "thereafter the applicant accepted the opponent as tenant and continued collecting the rental dues without any objection. In other words the applicant did not raise any objection towards the tenancy as the other tenants who were outsiders continued to occupy the premises of the applicant as tenant". It was denied that the petitioner was a defaulter and a plea was taken that he used to tender the rent for few months together which was never objected by respondent No,3. Receipt of the reminders and legal notice was denied. However, receipt of the letter dated -19-5-1997 was not denied. The personal requirement of the respondent No,3 as disclosed in the ejectment application was disputed and it was stated that the same was neither bona fide nor genuine. Filing of the application through the General Manager of the respondent No,3 was stated to be riot maintainable having not been filed by a competent person. Affidavit-in-evidence was filed by Ghulam Nabi, Assistant Manager and attorney of the applicant/respondent No,3 in support of the ejectment application, whereas petitioner filed his affidavit-in-evidence in rebuttal. By judgment/order dated 6-5-2000 the learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application on the grounds of wilful defaulter in payment of rent and personal bona fide requirement of the applicant in good faith for its employees. An appeal filed against the said order was rejected by respondent No,1 on 12-9-2002 after attending to all the grounds raised in support of appeal including maintainability of the ejectment application and status of the petitioner being that of "allottee" instead of "tenant". It appears that at the appellate stage the petitioner took a somersault in order to establish an altogether different plea that he was not a tenant within the meaning of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, hence the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter, though in his written statement he has categorically pleaded that his status after his retirement and having not vacated the demised premises even after expiry of the period of one year and in view of acceptance of the rent by the respondent- corporation, had become that of a tenant. On 25-9-2002 this petition was filed and the prayers made therein are reproduced as below: "(a) That the petitioner is entitled to the grant of sixty days time to vacate the premises.
(b) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to be ejected with due process of law only. .(c) To grant cost of this petition.
(d) Grant any other relief which might be considered appropriate." However, it appears that on 26-9-2002 when the matter was taken up in Court the learned counsel sought time to comply with office objections. Notice to respondent was also ordered to be issued on that date. On 7-10-2002 counsel for the respondent No,3 appeared but time was again sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner in order to file certified copy of the order of the Appellate Court and other relevant documents as such petition was adjourned to 14-10-2002. On that date time was once again sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner for introducing some amendments in the petition as according to him at the time of the filing of the petition impugned order was not available with him and he had filed the petition in haste in view of his apprehension for ejectment and that the certified copy was received after filing of this petition. It appears that amended memo. Of petition was filed on 22-10-2002 without filing any application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. Showing the proposed amendments and without waiting for order from this Court on such application which appears to have been filed on 11-11-2002. On 14-11-2002 when this matter came up before this Court both the learned counsel agreed to argue this matter for final disposal alongwith pending applications.
3. I have heard Mr. Mansoorul Haq Solangi learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.A. Shabbar Razvi learned counsel for respondent No,3. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the parties. I would like to reproduce the prayer made in the amended memo. Of petition which reads as follows:-- "This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare and hold as under:--
(1) Remand the case back to the learned II Rent Controller, Karachi, South to ascertain her jurisdiction.
(2) Set aside the impugned judgment dated 12-9-2002.
(3) Order cost of the petition.
(4) Any other relief (s) ordered by this Hon'ble Court." Mr. Mansoorul Haq Solangi learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction firstly for the reason that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No,3 and secondly in view of section 3 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which shows that the properties belonging to the Federal Government or Provincial Government stand excluded from the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller appointed under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. At this stage I feel it necessary to reproduce section 3 of the said Ordinance which reads as follows:- "Applicability.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, all premises other than those owned or requisitioned under any law, by or on behalf of the Federal Government or Provincial Government, situated within an urban area, shall be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance.
(2) Government may by notification, exclude any class of premises or premises in any area from operation of all or any of the provisions of the Ordinance." Mr. S.A, Shabbar Rizvi learned counsel for the respondent No,3 in rebuttal has argued that respondent No,3 is a corporation and owner of the demised premises which is not the property of the Federal or Provincial Government. Furthermore, in absence of any notification issued under section 3(2) of the said Ordinance it cannot be argued that the demised premises stand excluded from operation of all or any of the provisions of the said Ordinance.
4. Mr. Solangi though failed to produce any such notification but insisted that the property belonging to a corporation should be deemed to be the property of Government. Contention of the learned, counsel is misconceived and fallacious as respondent No,3 PIDC is a Private Limited Corporation and its property cannot be deemed to be the property of Government, hence I am of the considered view that the objection raised in respect of the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is devoid of any force and II without any substance. Learned counsel for the respondent No,3 has further pointed out with reference to para. 1 of the written statement filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner has categorically admitted to have become a tenant of respondent No,3 in respect of the demised premises. He has also referred to the affidavit-in-evidence filed by the petitioner who in his cross-examination to the counsel for the respondent No,3 has given the following replies:- "(i) It is correct to say that on 28-9-1992 the flit in question was let out to me for a year through agreement. I am bound to pay Rs,4,250 per month to the applicant on account of rent of the demised premises.
5. (ii)It is correct to say that according to the terms and conditions of agreement between me and the applicant, it was considered by me that I would vacate the demised premises whenever it will require to the applicant for its employees.
(iii) It is correct to say that on 25-5-1997 had paid rent to the applicant through cheque, rent for February, March and April, 1997.
(iv) It is correct to say that after filing this rent case by the applicant against me, I just started to depositing rent in M.R.C. No,1134 of 1998. I did not send rent through money order to the applicant.
(v) It is correct to say that I had filed a R.C. No,1417 of 1999 in this Court against the applicant under section 11 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
(vi) It is correct to say that the flats were constructed by the applicant for personal use of its employees." Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to get out of such admissions tried to argue that there is no estoppel against the law and as such any such admissions even if made by the petitioner have no evidentiary value. This contention has also no force. In fact the defence set up by the petitioner in his appeal and in this petition is nothing but an afterthought. A party cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at one and the same time and to go beyond its pleadings and particularly the admissions made during his evidence. Even at the time of filing of the Constitutional petition before this Court the petitioner was interested in seeking some more time for vacating the demised premises as it appears from the prayer clause of the unamended petition but soon after he made a different prayer in the amended memo. Of petition for remand of the case to the Rent Controller instead of seeking a decision regarding the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller in these proceedings. Definition of the words "landlord" and "tenant" have been defined in section 2(f) and (j) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 which are reproduced below for ready reference:-- "2(0. 'landlord' means the owner of the premises and includes a person who is for the time being authorized or entitled to receive rent in respect of such premises.
6. 2(j). 'tenant' means any person who undertakes or is bound to pay rent as consideration for the possession or occupation of any premises by him or by any other person on his behalf and includes."
7. In view of the definition of "landlord" and "tenant" as reproduced above and from the perusal of the material available on the record including the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced in support of their respective contentions and the various documents placed on record no other view can be taken but to hold that the petitioner is a tenant of respondent No,3 in respect of the demised premises and the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Court have exercised their jurisdiction legally and validly while entertaining and adjudicating upon the matter in controversy. Ejectment application tiled through General Manager of respondent/Corporation does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The two orders/judgments called in question through this petition do not require any interference by this Court in exercise of its. Constitutional jurisdiction. The cases reported as PLD 2000 Karachi 269, 1998 CLC 410, 1987 CLC 393 and 1985 CLC 2733 cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no relevance on factual and legal aspects of case in hand.
8. In view of the discussion made above, this petition is dismissed in limine alongwith listed applications. However, with no order as to costs. As the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, thirty (30) days time is granted to vacate the demised premises and hand over its vacant possession to respondent No,3, failing which the petitioner shall be evicted without any further notice in execution proceeding, which are pending and shall remain stayed till the expiry of the said period of thirty (30) days from today . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.