SHAKIR AHMED Versus KHURSHID AHMED

The respondents filed application for ejectment of Shop No. 3 situated at Plot No. 204/4‑B Tennery Road Bihar Colony, Karachi on the ground that the appellant has committed default in payment of rent from September 1986 and that the shop is required for personal bona fide use. The appellant denied the claim and pleaded that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist the parties. The learned Controller by the impugned order granted the ejectment application.

2. Mr. Mustahsan Siddiqui the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that no notice under section 18 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance was served or even issued to the appellant and therefore the application was not maintainable. This contention is based on the fact that according to the appellant he was paying rent to Manzoorul Haq who told him to pay rent to the respondents and he therefore, paid rent to them who were receiving on behalf of the Manzoorul Haq. The admitted position is that the appellant has paid rent to the respondents from 1985 to 1986 and rent receipts in that regard have been produced. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the respondents have not been proved to be owners of the premises and are therefore, not entitled to recover rent. The fact/remains that the appellant had been paying rent to respondents No. 1 who was receiving it and signing the receipts as the person entitled to receive the rent. These facts bring the respondents within the category of landlord as defined by, the Ordinance. Furthermore, as appellant had started paying rent to the respondent from the year 1985 it was not necessary to serve a notice under section 18 of the Ordinance. In this regard reference can be made to, 1981 SCMR 179.

3. The appellant admits to have paid rent upto September 1986 and thereafter he claims to have deposited rent in a Miscellaneous case filed by him in the name of Mazoorul Haq. The appellant having paid the rent for about a year to the respondent No. 1 without any reasonable cause should not have deposited the same m the name of the previous landlord who had instructed him to pay to the respondent No. 1. This shows appellants' in ala tides and in these circumstances the deposit of rent cannot wipe out the default.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that no document or evidence was produced to prove that the respondents are the owners. In the face of admission that the appellant has been paying rent to the respondents it was not necessary to establish ownership. A person who is an owner or authorised to receive rent is a landlord. This qualification attaches to the respondents. In these circumstances the finding of the learned Controller cannot be disturbed.

5. The second ground for seeking ejectment is that the respondents require the shop for their bona fide personal requirement. The appellant's entire exercise before the trial Court had been to challenge the relationship of landlord and tenant. The respondents in their affidavit of evidence have stated that the premises is required for respondent Imtiaz Ahmed who knows hosiery business and wants to carry on that business in the shop. Both the respondents have stated this fact in the application as well as in their affidavit of evidence, these statements have not been challenged in cross‑examination and their statement is consistant. In these circumstances the plea of personal requirement is also established. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant should vacate the premises on or before 31‑9‑1988.

AA./S‑231/K

Appeal dismissed.