MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus NASEER AHMAD

A tenant has by this second appeal filed under section 15 (4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, called in question order passed in first appeal whereby the learned Rent Controller's order directing eviction of the appellant on ground of false denial of relationship of landlord and tenant and forfeiture of tenancy was confirmed.

2. The controversy involved in this appeal is a short one. Learned counsel has contended that despite false denial of ownership of the respondent and his predecessor‑in‑interest under wrong advice of a lawyer the appellant should have been permitted to lead evidence in support of his plea that he had offered rent to the respondent on whose refusal he bad deposited the same in Bank.

3. 1 have gone through the pleadings of the parties as also their depositions at the trial. The appellant had made a denial in his written statement (on the basis of lack of knowledge) that Muhammad Latif, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondent was a transferee of the shop in dispute and further that the respondent had purchased the same from Muhammad Latif and thus had become owner thereof. These were the averments and denials made in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the application and written statement. The written statement is verified and signed by the appellant. When in witness‑box, the appellant admitted without any reservation that Muhammad Latif was a transferee from settlement department and further that he i.e. the appellant had been paying rent to said Muhammad Latif and thus, had attorned as a tenant to him. He also admitted that the notice sent by the respondent was received by him. In that notice which is Exh. P. 4 and is dated 25‑5‑1972 on the file (before the filing of the ejectment application),‑it is specifically mentioned that Latif was the original transferee and that respondent had purchased it through a registered deed. Not only this the appellant further admitted under cross‑examination that he knew that the shop had been purchased by the respondent from Latif. The appellant, in the last sentence of his deposition, further conceded that the written statement filed by him had been drafted under his instructions.

4. The above resume of the facts admitted by the appellant and the position taken by him in the written statement clearly shows that he made a contumacious denial under solemn verification in a written statement about the ownership of the property, which admittedly according to his subse quent 'deposition vested in the respondent. It may be mentioned here that it was on account of contamacious denial that the learned Rent Controller was obliged to frame a separate issue, apart from one relating to service of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, to the effect whether relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. In the fight of the above discussion I do not agree with the learned counsel that the denial in the written statement was merely on wrong advice of a counsel and, therefore, it should not have been taken into consideration by the Rent Controller and the first appellate Court. For the same reasons the belated application of the appellant for additional evidence so as to prove offer or payment of rent at the stage of first appeal could not have been allowed. The principle of forfeiture of tenancy on account of false and contumacious denial of certain established and admitted facts qua relationship of landlord and tenant, has correctly been applied. '

5. No justification has been made out for interference. This appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed with costs. s. Q. Appeal dismissed: