ABU BAKAR Versus SAFDAR ALI

ORDER

1. This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by one Abubakar son of Haji A.Ghaffar through attorney Abdul Aziz son of Usman against the order of Rent Controller dated 6‑3‑1988 whereby the Rent Controller rejected the application/objection filed by the appellant under Order 21, Rule 99, C.P.C. against the execution application. Mr.S.H.Rizvi, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of the Rent Controller is unsustainable in law as he failed to determine whether the appellant was a person bound by the decree of ejectment passed in Rent Case No.330 of 1966 in favour of respondent.

2. The case has apparently an unfortunate chequered history of litigation. The respondent instituted an ejectment case in the year 1966 against his tenant Haji Bashir Textile Mills, on the ground of default in payment of rent. The application was granted by the Rent Controller on 15‑11‑1966 and the order of ejectment was confirmed in appeal by the First Appellate Authority on 11‑8‑1970. However, in IInd Appeal No.368 of 1976, this Court set aside the ejectment order and remanded the case back to the First Appellate Authority. Against the order of this Court passed in IInd Appeal No.36R of 1976, the respondent preferred appeal to the Supreme Court which was allowed on 18‑5‑1981 and the ejectment order passed against the tenant Haji Bashir Textile Mills was restored. After conclusion of the proceedings as aforesaid the respondent filed Execution No.57 of 1981, to obtain possession of the premises. At this stage the present appellant intervened in the proceedings and claimed that he was tenant of the premises having obtained the same on lease from the Government after its forfeiture from the name of respondent, in May 1983. The appellant first filled Suit No.2118 of 1985 (this was originally instituted in 1983 and was renumbered in 1985) seeking declaration to the effect that he is the lawful tenant of the premises in suit, and then filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 99, C.P.C. before the Controller resisting the execution on the ground, that he was not bound by the ejectment decree passed against Haji Bashir Textile Mills. The Rent Controller rejected the application of appellant under Order XXI, Rule 99, `C.P.C. in F.R.A. No.532 of 1985. The order of Rent Controller was set aside and the case was remanded back to Rent Controller with the direction that the parties may be allowed to lead evidence and, thereafter, the case may be decided afresh in the light of such evidence. After remand of the case the appellant examined his attorney while respondent examined an official of City Surveyor Karachi. The Rent Controller on the basis of evidence produced before him reached the conclusion that appellant failed to establish that he is the tenant of the premises in his own right and consequently dismissed the application filed by him under Order XXI, Rule 99, C.P.C. Mr.S.H.Rizvi, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Rent Controller misread the evidence on record which shows that the appellant was a tenant of the Government in respect of the premises in suit. It is alternatively contended by the learned counsel that even if it is held that the appellant was not a tenant of the premises he was certainly not shows to be a person claiming through the J.D. and as such he was not bound by the decree. None of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has any merit. It is an admitted position that at the time the Ejectment Case No.330 of 1966 was filed the 'original tenant Haji Bashir Textile Mills was in possession of I the premises and contested the proceeding upto Supreme Court. The, present l appellant came in possession of the premises somewhere in 1983 and claimed that he was put in possessio11 by the Assistant Commissioner and he is tenant of the Government in respect of the suit premises. The suit filed, by the appellant seeking the declaration to this effect was dismissed by the Civil Court and the judgment in that case has become final. The respondent was the sole defendant in that suit. The evidence on record clearly shows that the plot in suit was never leased out to the appellant by the Government. On the contrary there is sufficient material on record to show that after forfeiture of the lease of plot by the Government it was restored in the year 1984 in favour of the respondent. The evidence of attorney of appellant clearly shows that he was not aware of any of the facts and was even unaware of the terms and conditions on which the lease was allegedly obtained by the appellant from Government. It is admitted on the record that the premises were obtained by appellant during the pendency of the case without consent of the respondent and as such he could not resist lawfully the execution of the decree against the original tenant. No case for interference is a made out. The appeal is dismissed summarily.

3. M.Y.H./A‑323/K Appeal dismissed.