SHAMIM BANO Versus QUDSIA BANO

This first rent appeal is directed against the order dated 31st May, 1986 of IVth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi (West). The Rent Controller has struck off the evidence of the appellant and directed him to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within 60 days.

2. The facts are that Mst. Qudsia Bano filed rent case under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, against Mst. Shamim Bano on the ground of default in payment of rent. During the pendency of the rent case, an application lender section 16 (1) of the Ordinance was moved before the Rent Controller on 10-3-1986 to which objections were filed by the appellant and finally the Rent Controller, passed an order under section 16(1) of the Ordinance by which he directed the appellant to deposit the arrears with effect from 1 st December, 1981 to 28th February. 1986 at rate of Rs. H00 per month amounting to the tune of Rs. 40,800 within one month and also deposit future monthly rent on or before 10th of each succeeding month. He further ordered that respondent should not withdraw the rent as her ownership was challenged. The appellant failed to deposit the arrears as well as the future rent a, such his defence was struck off.

3. I have heard Mr. Mohammad Yasin Azad, learned counsel for the appellant. 1t is argued that there exists no relationship between the appellant and Mst. Qudsia bano, therefore, the rent application is not maintainable and he was not bound to comply with the tentative order. He has referred to 1983 SCMR 1064 and 1987 CLC 352.

Mr. Zahia Marghoob, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that appellant was inducted as a tenant by an agreement and he used to pay rent to attorney Bashir Ahmed. It is argued that appellant is not claiming the ownership of the property, therefore, his objection is not maintainable.

4. The Rent Controller has decided the preliminary issue while deciding the application under section 16 (1). It is an admitted position that appellant is a tenant by way of an agreement with one Bashir Ahmad. He has not been able to prove or substantiate during the summary enquiry, whether he is paying rent to Mst. Alia Ali or Iqbal Bano, who, according to him, are the owners. The Rent Controller has considered all these objections and passed tentative rent order. The contention of appellant is that he is tenant of Iqbal Bano and she is regularly paying the rent to her, but he has failed to file affidavit of Iqbal Bano or another witness in this respect. On the contrary Mst. Shamim Bano filed Civil Suit No. 2695/84 against Bashir Ahmed Qudsia Bano and Akhtar Ali, in which he admitted that defendant No. 1 Bashir Ahmed was the owner of the property and she sold the property to Mst. Qudsia Begum, defendant No. 2. This suit was filed on 26th July, 1984 and copy of the plaint is in the record of appeal file. Prima facie the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that respondent Mst. Qudsia Bano is entitled to receive the rent. However, the appellant is not paying rent and has not complied with the order passed under section 16 (1) and the Rent Controller also safeguarded the interest of the appellant and has not allowed the respondent to withdraw the rent. In spite of that the appellant had not paid a single pie towards the arrears or the future rent in terms of the tentative rent order. Not only this, but no other person has come before the Rent Controller to claim the ownership of the property in question. In view of the circumstances stated above, I am of the view that the Rent Controller has rightly struck off the defence of the appellant. The appeal, having no force, is dismissed with the costs.

M.Y.H./S-397/K.

Appeal dismissed.