SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Circuit, passed in Civil Petition No,S-367 of 2002 whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner assailing the order of Vllth Additional District Judge, Hyderabad dated 22-4-2002 in F.R.A. No,279 of 2001 was maintained and the judgment of the Rent Controller, Hyderabad, dismissing. Rent Application No, 70 of 1998 tiled by the respondent was reversed and the rent case tiled by the respondent was allowed vide judgment dated 15-11-2002.
2. . Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner was let out residential premises of ground floor and first floor of property bearing No,B-150, Block-B, Unit No,7, Latifabad, Hyderabad under separate tenancy agreements dated 1-2-1985 and 1 -6-1986 respectively. Initially, rate of premises was fixed at Rs,3,000 per month and a fixed deposit of Rs,20,000 was received by the then owners Dr. Muhammad Arshad Khan and Muhammad Amjad Khan respectively. Subsequently, share of Amjad .Khan in the property was transferred in favour of Muhammad Rashid Khan. In the renu application tiled by respondent No,1 under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), rent of the demised premises was claimed at Rs,11,100 per month which was demanded by Mubeen Ahmed Khan father/attorney of owners.
Consequently petitioner/opponent in the rent case, through letter dated 28-8-1997 was required to pay. Monthly rent with effect from September, 1997 to the attorney directly. On 6-1-1998 a reminder was also issued. It is further borne out from the record that petitioner demanded copy of power of attorney through his letter dated 19-1-1998 which was also supplied to him through letter dated, 2- 2-1998. However, rent was not paid as required. The respondent sought the ejectment also on the ground that petitioner without the consent of the landlord had converted the demised residential premises into commercial one and also without authority and permission constructed the class rooms and thereby materially damaged the demised premises by making alterations and additions. Petitioner in his written statement denied the averments of the respondent. He disputed the rate of rent and stated that rent was only Rs,9,000 per month with further averment that as respondent refused to receive the rent, he had deposited the rent in Miscellaneous Rent Applications Nos.230 of 1997 and 231 of 1997 respectively and was depositing rent regularly. So far the additions and alterations are concerned the same were also denied. It was further asserted that petitioner had spent Rs,3 20,000 with a view to maintain the premises as the respondent failed to carry out necessary repair.
3. During pendency of the proceedings share of landlord Muhammad Amjad Khan was also transferred in favour of Muhammad Rashid Khan with the result that amended application as well as amended written statement were tiled before the trial Court. The Rent Controller settled the necessary issues. The parties adduced evidence in their support. After examining the record and hearing counsel for the parties rent application tiled by the respondent/landlord was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide judgment dated 14-4-2000. Respondent challenged the judgment of Rent- Controller through F.R.A. Mentioned hereinabove which was allowed. The petitioner challenged the same through writ petition which was dismissed, hence this petition.
4. We have heard Mr. Samad Mahmood, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, who inter alia, contended that the First Appellate Court as well as the learned Judge in Chambers did not consider the case in proper perspective and both the Courts have misread the evidence which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. We have considered the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and have very carefully examined the available record, perusal whereof shows that findings of Rent Controller were not based on the proper appreciation of evidence and were contrary to the evidence available on record. The VIIth Additional District Judge, after carefully examining the record for sound and cogent reasons allowed the appeal and reversed the findings of the Rent Controller. In writ petition also learned Judge in Chambers considered each and every aspect of the case and contentions raised by the parties and dismissed the same. It has been proved by satisfactory evidence that petitioner committed default in payment of rent and also carried out alterations and additions in the demised premises by converting the same from residential to commercial purposes which was against the spirit of the tenancy agreement executed by the petitioner with the landlord. The trial Court with the consent of parties appointed Local Commissioner for inspection of the site who submitted his report affording the contentions of the respondent that petitioner had made additions, alterations and constructed ten rooms in the lawn of the Bungalow. Obviously the same was in violation of the agreement entered into by the parties. It is established on record that petitioner has impaired the value and utility of the premises and caused material damage to it. We do not find misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence, or material illegality, irregularity or misconstruction of law in the impugned judgment as canvassed by the learned Advocate Supreme Court. The impugned judgment is based on the law laid down by this Court. However, it will be pertinent to refer the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment which read as follows:-- "I have perused the ejectment application. In para. 14, thereof, the respondents had specifically pleaded the additional construction of three rooms and Canteen in the lawn of the bungalow, whereby impairing the material value and utility of the premises. Such facts though were denied in the written statement, applicant reiterated the same in affidavit in evidence in para.
19. The respondent denied suggestion of any expenditure by the petitioner on the maintenance but he stated said amount has been spent on addition and alteration. The petitioner in his affidavit-in- evidence though denied unauthorized and illegal addition maintained that certain changes were made in order to accommodate a school.' In cross-examination he admitted that the subject property per clause (10) of the Tenancy Agreements was to be used for residential purposes only.
He also admitted that "I was not supposed to make any addition, alteration without written permission". He has also admitted that no such permission was produced in Court. Though he refers no N.O.C. Dated 31-3-1987 relating to the transfer of electric connection to impress that same is the no objection for allowing conversion of residential property in school and so also for making such addition and alteration. As discussed above, such alter was not confronted to the respondent in cross-examination, it cannot be relied upon at this stage. The petitioner admitted in cross- examination as follows:-- It is correct that, I have made the additions and alterations for running the school in the case premises but with the consent of the landlord 1 have added ten "rooms to the case premises. I have got no plan .Approved for this addition. Voluntarily says it is temporary. The construction is no with Tears and Girders. The original construction of the case premises is of R.C:C. It is correct that there was also a lawn area attached with the case premises such lawn area is provided by the Latifabad Administrative Committee. It is correct that there is construction on this area but it was made by the landlords. It is incorrect to suggest that this construction is made by me and not by the landlords.' From the above admission alone, keeping the Commissioner's report out of consideration, addition and alteration are proved. The nature of addition and alteration as admitted by the petitioner is sufficient to establish impairing the value and utility of the premises inasmuch as the lawn was totally converted into Canteen in addition to construction of as many as ten (10) space, to house a school itself is sufficient to impair the utility of the premises. The utility of a premises is to be judged from the stand point of the landlord who knows as to in what manner a particular premises could be best use to him. For reference one may refer to Taj Muhammad Abbasi v. Feroze Sons (Rawalpindi) Pvt. Ltd. (1996 SCM R 97), Organ on Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Rafat Ali Khan (1999 M LD 1166) and Sultana Jafery v. Muhammad Ali Abidi (2000 CLC 997). Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition, same is dismissed."
5. The impugned judgment is not open to exception. Furthermore, no substantial question of law of public importance is involved in this petition warranting the grant of leave.
6. For the facts, circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove petition is dismissed alongwith listed application and leave to appeal declined.