MUHAMMAD AFZAL MIR Versus FAKHAR JEHAN BEGUM

ORDER

1. USMAN ALI SHAH, J. ‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15‑5‑1988 of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, whereby, F.R.A.No. 111 of 1987 of the petitioner against the judgment dated 22‑11‑1986 of the 2nd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi West regarding her ejectment from the disputed premises, was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

2. The facts of the case are briefly stated to be that Habib Ahmad, prior owner had let out the premises in dispute i.e. House No. A‑1/4 to the petitioner vide agreement dated 9‑5‑1977. The present respondent Mst. Amir Jehan Begum had purchased the house in dispute for Rs. 65,000 for the said Habib Ahmad vide sale agreement dated 21‑9‑1977. She sent a notice under Section 13‑A of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance to the petitioner on 13‑9‑1978; informing her that the respondent purchased the said property for her own and children's occupation. She also alleged that the petitioner had not paid the rent from 1‑4‑1978 to 31‑8‑1978. This notice was replied by the petitioner, informing the respondent that all the rent was paid and the rent from the month of May, f1978 was being deposited in the Court. She also demanded the titled deed from the respondent.

3. On 29‑10‑1978 the respondent filed an ejectment application against the petitioner, in the Court of Vth Rent Controller at Karachi on the plea of default in payment of rent and for personal use of the premises. The learned Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue and vide his order dated 16‑2‑1980 held that there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner filed F.RA. No. 167 of 1980 in the High Court of Sind against the said order which was dismissed in limine vide order dated 18‑6‑1980. Subsequently, the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 22‑11‑1986 allowed the ejectment application against the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 22‑11‑1986, the petitioner filed F.RA. No. 111 of 1987 before the High Court of Sind. A learned Single Judge of the High Court vide his order dated 15‑5‑1988 dismissed the same, hence this petition for leave to appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the findings of the Courts below. The record of tile case will show that the learned counsel for the petitioner raised the same contentions which were raised by the petitioner, firstly in the written statement before the 2nd Senior Civil Judge, who framed issues and decided the same against her. Secondly, the petitioner raised the same contentions in appeal before the High Court. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged, more or less, the same contention before us that the petitioner has never committed any default in payment of rent. But the record of the case shows that no receipt of payment of rent is available to prove that the petitioner has made the payments regularly. Only in her written statement the petitioner has taken the plea that she has never been a defaulter. In order to prove this contention the petitioner should have produced evidence in this regard, which she failed to do so. The contention raised by the learned counsel before us is with regard to the question of fact which the learned Courts below have thoroughly examined and arrived It of the correct conclusion.

6. In the circumstances and for the foregoing reason, in our opinion it is not a fit case for the grant of leave. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.

7. M.Y.H./M‑612/S Petition dismissed.