1992 PLP 2487 (CLC)

This appeal is directed against the order, dated 1‑8‑1987 passed by the learned VIth Rent Controller, Karachi (West), in Rent Case No.1058/86, thereby allowing the application for ejectment of the respondent only on the ground of default in payment of rent. The issue pertaining to requirement of the premises in question for her personal use, and for use of her daughter, has been decided in favour of the appellant.

2. On 29‑9‑1986 the respondent filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called "the Ordinance") for eviction of the appellants. from the House No.Il/H‑4/2, Nazimabad, Karachi (hereinafter called the "demised house") on the grounds of default in payment of rent from September, 1982 to March, 1985 (33 months) and again from June, 1986 onwards, at the rate of Rs.800 per month. It was further pleaded that the demised premises was also required by the respondent for her own and her children's use inasmuch as the accommodation in her possession consisting of three rooms only was insufficient for the use of her family, consisting of nine persons‑‑five daughters, two sons, the applicant and her husband).

3. The appellants filed joint written statement denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant No.2 and the respondent. It was further pleaded that the rent from 1‑9‑1982 to 1‑9‑1984 at the rate of Rs.800 per month totalling to Rs.20,000 was paid in lump sum to the respondent by the appellant No.l in the month of September, 1984. The rent with effect from October, 1984 till July, 1986 at the aforesaid rate had been regularly paid to the respondent, who never issued rent receipts. The appellant No.l then remitted the rent for the month of August, 1986 by money order on 28‑8‑1986, which was duly acknowledged by the respondent. The rent for the month of September, 1986 was also remitted by money order on 3‑9‑1986 which the respondent refused to accept with the result the appellant No.l started depositing the rent in the Court of the Rent Controller, through Miscellaneous Rent Case No.1030/86 and since then it is being so deposited. The ejectment application was claimed to have been filed mala fidely, as the respondent had failed to pay the sum of Rs.18,750 to the appellant No.l, who had supplied marble to the respondent for her house, with a view to pressurise the appellant No.l to give up the said claim. It was also denied that the respondent's requirement of the premises was bona fide. It was also pleaded that the respondent had on 1‑7‑1986 rented out the first floor of the disputed building where she was residing to one Irshad at a monthly rent of Rs.1,800 plus security deposit.

4. In support of her case, the respondent examined four witnesses including herself, whereas the appellant examined herself and one Razae Panjatan AM, as her witness. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:‑‑ (1) Whether opponent has committed default in payment of rent? (2) Whether applicant requires demised premises in question for his personal use and use of her daughter? (3) What should the order be?"

5. The learned Rent Controller answered the issue No.l in the affirmative and the issue No.2 in the negative; hence this appeal at the instance of the tenant.

6. I have heard Mr. Hussain Sheikh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Raja Shamsuzaman, learned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the relevant record and the evidence of the parties.

7. The only issue involved in this appeal is that of default in payment of rent. In his written statement, the appellant candidly admitted that, the rent for the period from September, 1984 that is for 25 months was outstanding and that the rent for the said period had been paid in lump sum in September, 1984, for which the respondent failed to issue any rent receipt. The respondent has categorically denied the payment of the rent for the said period. She has further deposed that after referring to her notes, she found that the appellant had not paid rent from September, 1982 to March, 1985. No evidence has been led by the appellant No.l to establish that in what manner the amount of Rs.20,000 was paid. Such a huge amount. in the ordinary course, was expected to have been paid either by cheque or Pay Order. The passing of the said amount in cash without obtaining the receipt is ex facie unbelievable. The payment of this amount of Rs.20,000 was not even mentioned in the reply given by the appellant No.l to the notice dated 2‑7‑1986 of the respondent's Advocate. The learned Rent Controller has thoroughly and, in my opinion, A properly considered the evidence of the parties in this behalf. I do not, therefore, find any justification to interfere with the impugned order. No other ground was agitated before me.

8. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the appellants are allowed three months time to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the demised house to the respondent, subject to payment of agreed monthly rent to him regularly, failing which they shall be liable to be eviced forthwith without notice. A.A./M‑1692/K ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.