Law:

Section:

(a) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)-- ---Ss: 2 & 18--Word "Landlord"--Connotation of--Tenant paying rent to subsequent landlord at the instance of previous landlord--Notice under S. 18 not necessary--Where tenant had been paying rent to a person who was receiving it and signing receipts as the person entitled to receive such rent, that person would come within the category of landlord as defined by the Ordinance--Tenant having started paying rent to subsequent landlord from specific date, serving of notice upon such tenant under S. 18 would not be necessary. 1981 SCMR179re1. (b) Words and phrases----- Word "landlord", connotation of--Person who was receiving rent and' signing receipts as the person entitled to receive the same would be a landlord. (c) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)----- S. 15--Default in payment of rent when would be constituted--Where tenant had been paying rent to subsequent landlord at the instance of previous landlord, deposit of rent subsequently in the name of previous landlord would constitute default in payment of rent. (d) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (Xv1I of 1979)----- S. 15--Landlord and tenant--Proof of relationship when not to be necessary- Tenant had been paying rent to subsequent landlord--Person authorized to receive rent being landlord proof of ownership by such person would not be necessary. (e) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)----- S. 15--Ejectment of tenant--Bona fide personal requirement of landlord--Proof of--Landlord's affidavits in evidence about bona fide- personal requirement of premises having not been challenged in cross-examinations would establish the personal bona fide requirement. JUDGMENT 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…