| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1986 SLD 389 = 1986 CLC 1613 |
Sindh High Court
First Rent Appeal No. 64 of 1984, decided on 30 th March,1986.
Saleem Akhtar, J
First Rent Appeal No. 64 of 1984, decided on 30 th March,1986.
Saleem Akhtar, J
Mst. FATIMA--Appellant
VERSUS
Mst. HANIFA--Respondent
Law:
Section:
The appellant filed an ejectment case against the respondent in respect of but on plot No. 342 Old Golimar, Karachi, on the ground of default in payment of rent. It was alleged that the respondent is her tenant from the year 1971 and has defaulted in payment of rent from 1-1-1980. The respondent denied the tenancy and claimed that she is the owner of the disputed premises. The learned Controller framed the following issues:- Whether there exists any relationship of tenancy? Whether the opponent has committed wilful default with effect from 1-1-1980? What should the order be? The learned Controller after discussing the evidence produced by the parties and relying on section 5 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 dismissed the ejectment application as the appellant had failed to produce rent agreement or any other proof in writing regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Mr. Shaikh Abdul Majeed, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that from the evidence on record the appellant has established that she is the owner of the disputed premises and the respondent was paying rent to her. Miss Wajahat Niaz, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no conclusive proof of the ownership as well as the relationship of landlord and tenant. She further contended that in view of section 5 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance as there is no agreement of tenancy as required by this section, the question of existence of tenancy or its proof in any other manner does not arise. In this regard the learned counsel has referred to Habib Ahmed v. Liaquat P L D 1984 Kar. 741. First I would like to deal with the merits of the case by referring to the evidence of the parties. From the very beginning the respondent has been disputing the title of the appellant as well as the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The appellant has produced several witnesses to show that the property was purchased by her husband from Din Muhammad who had purchased it from Muhammad Umar. Exh.P.3 is a receipt dated 7-2-1968 on a stamp paper of Rs.2 by which…