2001 PLP 679 (CLC)

Shaikh Muhammad Mushtaque for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th May, 1999. This First Rent Appeal has been filed against the order of IInd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (South) passed in Rent Case No.1760 of 1994, whereby he dismissed the above rent case, which was filed by the appellant, on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as his personal need of the premises in dispute. Before proceeding airy further, it may be pointed out that the Presiding Officer did not even know that in deciding the aforesaid rent case, he was not acting as a Senior Civil Judge but as a Rent Controller. However. both in the heading as well as at the end of the judgment, he has mentioned the designation as IInd Senior Civil Judge and nowhere the words "Rent Controller" has been mentioned. This fact has only been mentioned with a view to make a reflection on the understanding and intellect of the concerned Presiding Officer. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Presiding Officer did not even bother to take into consideration the evidence both, oral as well as documentary, which had been produced by the parties. The appellant in his ejectment application has alleged default w.e.f. December, 1992 but the A Rent Controller only took into consideration the. default w..e.f. July, 1994. He did not give any reason for not taking into consideration the earlier default and give a finding thereon. Even for the finding given by him with regard to the alleged default for the months of July, August, September and 1 October, 1994, he has not given any reasonable and plausible ground fort coming to the conclusion that the respondent had not committed any default in respect thereof and the same is solely whimsical and arbitrary. With regard to the issue of personal requirement, the Rent Controller has completely failed to give any plausible or reasonable ground for holding that the personal requirement or need was not established. There was no provision which required the opponent/respondent to show or disclose the names of the tenants, who were in occupation of other shops, which had been rented out by the appellant/applicant. It was also not the provision of law which required the appellant to give reasons for his choice or preference for a particular shop when he also owned other shops. For the above reasons I am convinced that the impugned order is absolutely in disregard of the evidence and material available on record and is based on misreading and misconstruing the evidence and contrary to the well‑established principles relating to the question of default and personal requirement. The impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Rent Controller who is directed to decide it in accordance with law, after taking into consideration all the material and evidence and record, giving valid and proper reasons for his findings. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 5‑7‑1999. The matter should be decided within four months from the date of first appearance of the parties. H.B.T./A‑117/K Appeal allowed.