IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE,

SHAHEED BENAZIR ABAD.

Rent Appeal No. OF 2010.

Mst. Zahida Haroon Wd/O Muhammad

Haroon Qureshi, muslim, adult, r/o H.No 1
A- 429, Mohalla Gharibabad, Market Road,
Nawabshah.
…………….Appellant.

Versus.

Muhammad Ashique son of Babu Khoja,

shopkeeper shop No. 19, Madina Market,
Nawabshah.
…………….Respondent.

CIVIL APPEAL U/S 96 CPC.

Being aggrieved by the order dated: 24.04.2010, passed by the

learned Rent Controller/Ist. Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah, in Rent
Application No. 16 of 2009, (Re-Mst Zahida Haroon Vs Muhammad
Ashique), by dismissing the Rent Application of the appellant/applicant, the
appellant/applicant prefers this appeal on the following facts and grounds
and prays that the Honourable Court may be pleased to set-aside the order
dated: 24.04.2010, whereby opponent may be ordered to be ejected from the
suit shop viz. Shop No. 19, situated in Ward ”B” Madina Market Nawabshah
and thereby appellant/applicant may be put in vacant possession thereof.
P/2…
- :F A C T S: -
a). Facts leading to the present appeal are that applicant/appellant

filed Rent Application bearing No. 16 of 2009, Under Section 14 of Sindh

Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, in respect of shop bearing No.19,

constructed on C.S No. 940, Ward “B” , Madina Market Nawabshah, for

which she became the owner by way of inheritance from her husband

Muhammad Haroon S/O Din Muhammad Qureshi .

b). That previously the suit shop was being managed by the husband of
the appellant/applicant and after his death her in laws. The management of
suit shop along with all the rights by handed over about six months prior to
filling the Rent Application , which are in the possession of the opponent
being tenant.

c). That after applicant became full-fledged owner she sent legal notice
bearing No.MLC/L.N/-07 of 2009, dated: 15.02.2009, but the same was
returned un-served that there was no person in the name of opponent in the
market. Again legal notice bearing No.MLC/L.N/-12 of 2009, dated:
21.02.2009 was issued to the opponent on three address which was
ultimately received by him, to which the opponent replied through his
advocate vide reference L.N/08 /09, dated: 28.02.2009, requiring the title
documents in the name of applicant/appellant, the applicant sent the title
documents to the opponent vide legal notice bearing NO.MLC/L.N/14 of
2009, dated: 24.03.2009, but opponent with malafide intention avoided the
facts aforesaid while letter NO. LN/-08 of 2009, dated: 09.04.2009.

d). That ultimately the applicant issued legal notice bearing

No.MLC/L.N/16 of 2009, dated: 27.04.2009, requiring the shop from the
opponent on the ground of default as well as bonafide use, but the opponent
failed to do so.

e). That it is also worth to mention that applicant/appellant is a widow

having four children and wants to open the shop in collaboration with her
father in law to open the business of cosmetic by breaking the intervening
walls of suits shop as well as shops Nos.20, 21 and 22.
P/3…

P/3…
f). That the applicant also approached the opponent by asking that shop
in question is required to the applicant/appellant for her personal bonafide
use but the opponent refused to do so, hence the rent application was filed
with the prayer “that order may be passed whereby the opponent may be
ordered to be ejected from the suit shop bearing No. 19, situated in Ward
“B”, Madina Market Nawabshah, and thereby the applicant may be put in
vacant possession”.

g). After filling the application the opponent was served, who denied the
averments of the applicant by filling the objections.

h). The learned trial Court after the examination of witnesses on both the
sides dismissed the rent application of the applicant/appellant, hence this
appeal , on the following grounds :-

-: G R O U N D S :-

1). That the order passed by learned Ist. Senior Civil Judge / Rent
Controller Nawabshah is against facts, law and equity and is liable to be set
aside.

2). That the learned trial has failed to appreciate that the
applicant/appellant is widow.

3). That the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the attitude of
the opponent was contumacious by denying the title of the
applicant/appellant, as the opponent who is showing that he is in possession
of shop No.23, on which Muhammad Aslam is tenant of Umder Din, while
the opponent is in possession of shop No.19, for which this application is
being filed.

4). That the applicant is land lord of the opponent, but the opponent
neither gave the rent to the applicant nor sent any money order in her name
nor deposited the rent in the name of the applicant, therefore, the opponent
has become defaulter in paying the rent but the learned trial Court has not
appreciated this fact.
P/4…

P/4…
5). That learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that applicant being
widow needed the shop in question for her personal bona-fide use to open
the business in collaboration with her father in law.

6). That learned trial court has wrongly held that applicant has failed to
establish her bona-fide need of the shop in question.

7). That no cogent reason has been set-forth by the learned trial court
while dismissing the application and the order is not speaking one.

8). That the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the
application for enhancement of rent was filed till the Rent Application is
decided.

9). That the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the opponent
on the one hand was defaulter in payment of rent on other hand the shop in
question was required to the applicant/appellant for her personal bonafide
use.

10). That the order passed by learned trial court is not sustainable at law
and is liable to be set-aside and the possession of the shop in question is
liable to be handed over to the applicant/appellant on both two scores viz.
personal bonafide use in good faith and default .

11). That the other grounds will be urged at the time of arguments.

12). That the appeal is in time and the Honourable Court has jurisdiction
and the certified true copy of impugned order is also submitted herewith.

ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT.

NAWABSHAH.
Dated:
 IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE,
SHAHEED BENAZIR ABAD.

Rent Appeal No. OF 2010.

Mst. Zahida Haroon Wd/O Muhammad

Haroon Qureshi, muslim, adult, r/o H.No 1
A- 429, Mohalla Gharibabad, Market Road,
Nawabshah.
…………….Appellant.

Versus.

Kamran Abdul Shakoor S/O Haji Abdul

Ghafoor, shopkeeper shops bearing No. 20,21
and 22, Madina Market, Nawabshah.
…………….Respondent.

CIVIL APPEAL U/S 96 CPC.

Being aggrieved by the order dated: 24.04.2010, passed by the

learned Rent Controller/Ist. Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah, in Rent
Application NO. No. 17 of 2009, (Re-Mst Zahida Haroon Vs Kamran Abdul
Shakoor), by dismissing the Rent Application of the appellant/applicant, the
appellant/applicant prefers this appeal on the following facts and grounds
and prays that the Honourable Court may be pleased to set-aside the order
dated: 24.04.2010, whereby opponent may be ordered to be ejected from the
suit shops viz. Shops No. 20, 21 and 22, situated in Ward ”B” Madina Market
Nawabshah and thereby appellant/applicant may be put in vacant
possession thereof.
P/2…
 - :F A C T S: -

a). Facts leading to the present appeal are that applicant/appellant

filed Rent Application bearing No. 17 of 2009, Under Section 14 of Sindh
Rented Premises Ordinance, 1779, in respect of shops bearing Nos. 20, 21 and
22 constructed on C.S No. 940, Ward “B” , Madina Market Nawabshah, for
which she became the owner by way of inheritance from her husband
Muhammad Haroon S/O Din Muhammad Qureshi .

b). That previously the suit shops were being managed by the husband
of the appellant/applicant and after his death her father in law. The
management of suit shops along with all the rights by handed over about six
months prior to filling the Rent Application , which are in the possession of
the opponent being tenant.

c). That after applicant became full-fledged owner she sent legal notice
bearing No.MLC/L.N/-06 of 2009, dated: 15.02.2009, informing him about
the handing over the management of the shops to the applicant, the
opponent attorned the applicant to be the tenant of applicant/appellant vide
her reply dated: 06.03.2009.

d). That even after attorning the applicant/appellant to be the land lord
of the opponent , neither the opponent / respondent paid the rent to the
applicant/appellant, hence the applicant/appellant against sent a legal
notice bearing MLC/L.N/-17 of 2009, dated: 27.04.2009, for handing over the
possession of the suit shops within two months, but the opponent neither
handed over the possession of the shops nor paid the rent to the applicant,
therefore, the necessity arisen to her to file the Rent Application for ejectment
on both the scores viz. Personal bonafide use in good faith and in default.

e). That it is also worth to mention that applicant/appellant is a widow

having four children and wants to open the shop in collaboration with her
father in law to open the business of cosmetic by breaking the intervening
walls of suits shops as well as shop No.19.

P/3…

P/3…
f). That the applicant also approached the opponent by asking that shops
in question are required to the applicant/appellant for her personal bonafide
use but the opponent refused to do so, hence the rent application was filed
with the prayer “that order may be passed whereby the opponent may be
ordered to be ejected from the suit shops bearing Nos. 20,21, 22 situated in
Ward “B” , Madina Market Nawabshah, and thereby the applicant may be
put in vacant possession”.

g). After filling the application the opponent was served, who denied the
averments of the applicant by filling the objections.

h). The learned trial Court after the examination of witnesses on both the
sides dismissed the rent application of the applicant/appellant, hence this
appeal , on the following grounds :-

-: G R O U N D S :-

1). That the order passed by learned Ist. Senior Civil Judge / Rent
Controller Nawabshah is against facts, law and equity and is liable to be set
aside.

2). That the learned trial has failed to appreciate that the
applicant/appellant is widow.

3). That the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that even after
attorning the applicant to be the land lord of the opponent, but the opponent
neither gave the rent to the applicant nor sent any money order in her name
nor deposited the rent in the name of the applicant and such facts have been
admitted by the opponent in the evidence, therefore, the opponent has
become defaulter in paying the rent but the learned trial Court has not
discussed any single word on this point and nor framed the issue of default,
which is also against the law and facts available in the case.

4). That learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that applicant being
widow needed the shops in question for her personal bona-fide use to open
the business in collaboration with her father in law.
P/4….

P/4…
5). That learned trial court has wrongly held that applicant has failed to
establish her bona-fide need of the shops in question.
6). That no cogent reason has been set-forth by the learned trial court
while dismissing the application and the order is not speaking one.

7). That the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the
application for enhancement of rent was filed till the Rent Application is
decided.

8). That the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the
opponent on the one hand was defaulter in payment of rent on other hand
the shops in question were required to the applicant/appellant for her
personal bonafide use.

9). That the order passed by learned trial court is not sustainable at
law and is liable to be set-aside and the possession of the shops in question is
liable to be handed over to the applicant/appellant on both two scores viz.
personal bonafide use in good faith and default .

10). That the other grounds will be urged at the time of arguments.

11). That the appeal is in time and the Honourable Court has jurisdiction.

12). Certified true copy of impugned order is submitted herewith.

ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT.

NAWABSHAH.
Dated: