Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Section: .2(j)  ,  21

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVIII of 1979)--- ----Ss.2(j)  &  21---Default  in  payment  of  rent ---Ejectment---Relationship  of  landlord  and tenant---Denial of such relationship by appellant---Rent Controller adjudged appellant to be tenant of demised premises and ordered his ejectment for default in payment of rent---Validity---Appellant, who was in occupation of the premises had admittedly received notice by respondent that he having become owner of premises  in  question,  was  entitled  to  receive rent---Appellant did not have any title to possess those premises or occupy the same and he was bound to pay rent for possession/occupation of premises, therefore, he was tenant---Appellant in spite of receipt of notice did not pay rent to respondent, therefore, default was established on the face of record---Order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller was maintained in circumstances. Muhammad Tufail v. Barkat Ali PLD 1967 Kar. 151; Qassim through Legal Heirs v. Aziz Baig 1993 CLC 2385; Muhammad Shabbir and another v. Mst. Hamida Begum 1992 MLD 323; Mst. Parveen Akhtar v. Shafiq Ahmed 1990 CLC 2019 and Muhammad Rifatullah Alvi v. Imran Ansari PLD 1990 SC 369 ref. S. Abdur Rehman for Appellant. A. M. Mobeen Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th September, 1997.   JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the tenant who was ordered to vacate the premises and hand over possession to the respondent by 1st Rent Controller Sukkur, who allowed Rent Application No.43 of 1992 on the ground of default nuisance and personal need vide the impugned judgment, dated 17th May, 1993. Facts of the case are that the appellant was in possession of premises No.C.S. B-21/2-A (98 sq. yds.) situated at Babarki Bazar, Sukkur. He claimed that he has purchased the premises from the Settlement Department. Admittedly the litigation between the appellant and the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent went up to the Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment, dated 28-2-1991 decided the case in favour of the predecessor-in- interest of the respondent who has subsequently transferred…