1984 PLP 2715 (CLC)

(a) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.21‑‑Ejecement‑‑Tenant in his cross‑examination admitting default in payment of rent for about three years‑‑ Rent Controller, held, justified in ordering his ejectment. (b) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.21‑‑Ejectment ‑‑Plea that after death of original tenant all his heirs not joined as parties not raised by tenant in written statement ‑‑Tenants, held, not entitled to raise said plea at belated stage. Muhammad Ramzan v. Ch. Bashir Ahmad P L D 1981 S C 340 ref. The respondents are owners of house bearing City Survey No.374 situated in Mehar Town District Dadu. This house was purchased by respondent Pahloomal in the name of his son Suresh Kumar (respondent No.1) in open auction from the Settlement Department. A P.T.D. was issued in favour of Suresh Kumar and on the basis of the P.T.D. his name was also entered in the City Survey record. At the time of the transfer of the property Suresh Kumar was minor. Even at the time of filing ejectment application he was minor. Therefore, application had been filed through his next kin (father) namely, Pahloomal respondent No.3.

2. This house was given on rent to appellants Kaloomal and Motimal, who were occupying this house at the time when it was purchased by the respondents. They continued paying rent upto 1977 and thereafter, did not pay or tender any rent. Hence the respondents filed ejectment application No.1 of 1980 before Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Mehar. The appellants accepted their status as tenants, but denied the rate of rent claimed by the respondents at Rs.20 per month. According to them, the rate of rent was only Rs.9 per month. The respondents had also pleaded that they required the house for their personal use. This plea was also contested by the appellants.

3. After recording evidence of the parties, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondents have proved both default on the part of the appellants in payment of rent for several years as well as their personal requirement, and as such they were liable to be ejected. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through thel entire evidence. Appellant Kaloomal in his cross‑examination (Exh.22) hash clearly admitted that he did not pay or tender any rent from 1977 onwards. This admission itself was quite sufficient to justify the conclusion that, appellants had been wilful defaulters.

5. It has been alleged by the learned counsel for the appellants that notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act of 1958 was served upon the appellants. However, he did not press this plea when it pus brought to his notice that this point was settled by a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Ramzan v. Ch. Bashir Ahmad P L 0 1981 S C

340. Moreover, no such plea was taken by the appellants in the written statement.

6. Another argument urged by Mr. K.B.Bhutto on behalf of the appellants' is that the original tenant was Khan Chand, father of the appellants and that after death of Khan Chand all the heirs of the deceased, including the two appellants, should have been joined as parties. It is alleged that Khan Chand was survived by a daughter also who has not been joined as opponent. No such plea was raised in the written statement. Hence the appellants are not entitled to raise this plea at this belated stage. If there had been any other survivor of deceased Khan Chand this must have, been stated specifically by the appellants in the written statement.

7. In view of the admitted default in payment of rent for about three years, it is not necessary to consider the other plea of the respondents, regarding their personal requirement. In view of the above discussion the learned Rent Controller was' justified in ordering ejectment of the appellants. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. The appellants are given two months time to vacate the premises. M.Y.H. Appeal dismissed.