1989 PLP 160 (CLC)

1. Granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned IVth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (West) Karachi, dated 24‑3‑1988, ordering the appellant to hand over the demised premises to the respondent within 60 days of the passing of the order. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the respondent is a landlady of the premises comprising of a shop, situated at ABC Apartments, Nazimabad, Karachi, on the ground floor and the appellant was the respondent's tenant in respect of the aforesaid shop. The respondent filed an ejectment application against the appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent and also on the ground that the premises in question were needed bona fide for her personal use. According to the respondent, the appellant had failed to pay her water and conservancy charges amounting to Rs.2,000, which according to the tenancy agreement were payable by him. The premises were also required by the respondent for her personal use, as she was a divorcee and was living with her father and had three children, who were living with her and she wanted to start a business of her own in the demised premises. Both the grounds urged in the ejectment application found favour with the learned Rent Controller who ordered the appellant's ejectment from the premises, as pointed out above. Mr. Sibghatullah Hameed, learned counsel for the appellant has argued firstly that, according to the rent agreement, the water and conservancy charges were payable by the appellant to the department concerned directly and not to the landlady and consequently, such charges could not be termed as rent and therefore, even if they were not paid by the appellant, as admitted by him, the latter could not be ejected from the premises on that account. Reliance has been placed on the case of Abdul Khalique v. Ghulam Abbas Btiatti 1981 C L C 1114, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court had held that for the purposes of section 13 of the Urban Rent Restrictions Ordinance, "rent" would mean such water or conservancy charges as were payable by the tenant to the landlord and not directly to the authorities concerned. Secondly it has been argued that according to the admitted facts of the case brought before the learned Controller, the respondent had agreed to sell the property in question to one Atiq Siddiqui although later on that transaction did not materialize and the sale agreement was cancelled. Consequently, according to the learned counsel, the need of the respondent. was not bona fide. I find both these arguments as devoid of force. First of all the definition of rent given in the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. 1979, includes therein "water charges, electricity charges and such other charges, which are payable by the tenant but are unpaid. Consequently, it nowhere appears from the aforesaid definition that only such charges would be included in the definition of rent which are directly payable to the landlord, as the definition of rent as pointed above, does not attach any such condition. The case cited by Mr. Sibghatullah Hameed is clearly not attracted to the facts of the instant case, as in that case the learned Judge of this Court was dealing with the interpretation of the explanation attached to section 13(2), according to which, only such water charges, etc. could constitute rent as were payable by the tenant directly to the landlord. No such condition has been attached by the definition of rent in the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance as pointed out above. Consequently, the argument advanced by the learned counsel has no force. It may be pointed out that although it was the case of the appellant that he had not received any bills relating to the water or conservancy charges .from the department concerned, but such contention did not find favour with the learned Controller, who has held that the appellant in any case was duty bound to obtain the bills from the concerned department and make payment. However, according to the learned Controller, the copies of the water bills clearly indicated the address of the appellant thereon and therefore, he did not accept the plea of the appellant that he had not received any water bills or other bills from the department concerned. I do not find that the findings arrived at by the learned Controller are open to exception. Lastly, turning to the argument of Mr. Sibghatullah Hameed that the respondent had agreed to sell the property in question to one Atiq Siddiqui, it may be pointed out that even if the contention B of the appellant before the learned Controller was right, the same in any way could not defeat the respondent's plea for personal requirement as admittedly, such transaction had ultimately not materialized. In the result, find no force in the appeal and it is dismissed in limine.

3. C .Irl . A . No.898 of 1988 has also become infructuous and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./A‑432/K Appeal dismissed.