1986 PLP 689 (CLC)

First Rent Appeal No.350 of 1983, decided on 25th November, 1985. ‑‑‑Ss.15(2)(ii) & 21(1)‑‑Default‑‑Proof‑‑Tenant admittedly was in arrears of rent of premises for five months on date of filing of ejectment application‑‑Mere fact that attorney of landlady was also attorney of sons and daughter of landlady and he had received some amount on their behalf from tenant as their attorney, held, could hardly justify tenant to withhold rent‑‑Rent Controller was Fully justified in holding tenant defaulter in payment of rent in circumstances. Nasrullah Awan for Appellant. Khalilur Rehman for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th November, 1985. This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by the appellant /tenant against order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller No.XVII, Karachi, in Rent Case No.5679/78, on the application of respondent. The ejectment application was instituted by the respondent alleging default against the appellant from July to November, 1978. The application was instituted on 4‑12‑1978. There is no dispute with regard to period and rate of rent. It is also not disputed that the tenancy was created under a written agreement which provides for payment of rent in advance before 7th of each month. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to explain the default alleged against appellant is that K.A. Jaleel husband/ attorney of the respondent had also entered into 3 other agreements of tenancies in respect of other premises belonging to 2 sons and 1 daughter of the landlady as their attorney and that the appellant had allegedly paid sum of Rs.1,50,000 by way of an advance for those premises to said K . A . Jaleel but they were never put in possession of the same and, therefore, dispute arose between the parties with regard to refund of that amount. It is accordingly contended that in these circumstances there was no wilful or deliberate default on the part of appellant so as to call for their eviction from the premises. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has not impressed me at all. On the date of filing of the ejectment application the appellant was admittedly in arrears of rent from July to November, 1978 and mere fact that the attorney of the respondent was also attorney of the 2 sons and 1 daughter of the landlady and had received some amount on their behalf as their attorney could hardly justify the appellant to withhold rent of the disputed premises. The Rent Controller was, therefore, fully justified in holding the appellant as defaulter in payment of rent. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. Mr. Nasrullah Awan learned counsel for the appellant requests for time to vacate the premises by the appellant. Mr. Khalilur Rehman for respondent does not oppose the request but states that the arrears of the rent have not been deposited as directed by this Court. On the contrary Mr. Nasrullah Awan learned counsel for the appellant states that the cheques in respect of arrears of rent‑ have been regularly sent to the Rent Controller Office for encashment but it appears that they have not encashed the same. In these circumstances, I allow six months time to the appellant subject to the condition that the appellant shall deposit entire arrears of rent outstanding against them in this Court within one month from today and they shall also continue to deposit monthly rent in this Court for the period of six months. The appellant may withdraw the cheques issued to the office of the Rent Controller if they have not yet been encashed. H.B.T. Appeal dismissed.