1983 PLP 2730 (CLC)

(b) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑ ‑‑ S. 15‑Eviction proceedings‑Bona de fide personal requirement Landlady in her evidence before Court to clear terms stating that she was residing in house with one of her relatives and this fact not controverted ‑Landlady having no other premises of her own in locality and nothing on record to show that she is in occupation of any other premises owned or possessed by her‑Ejectment order t1~: passed by Rent Controller on personal and bona fide requirement of landlady, held, found fully justified. Zubair Ahmad for Appellant. .S. Zubair Hasan for Respondent. Date of hearing : 5th November, 1981. This appeal is directed against the order of IIIrd Rent Controller dated 30th October, 1980 whereby the appellant has been ordered to be evicted from the premises on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement of the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant contended before me that the appellant has been condemned unheard in this case as he was not given an opportunity to lead the evidence before the Rent Controller. It is contended by the learned counsel that on 10th of August, 1980 when the case was adjourned to 30th of August, 1980 for evidence, the counsel appearing for the appellant wrongly noted the date as 30th of October, 1980 and, therefore, when the case proceeded in between 10th of August, 1980 and the 30th of October, 1980 he did not appear in the Court under the impression that the case is fixed on 30th October, 1980. I have seen the diary sheets of the case before the Rent Controller. On 10th of August, 1980 the. case was adjourned to 30th August, 1980 in presence of both the counsel who were present in Court. On 30th August, 1980 the opponent was called but he was absent and, therefore, the Rent Controller again adjourned the bearing to 7th September, 1980 for evidence of the appellant. On 7th September, 1980 the opponent and his counsel were again absent and at 2.00 p. m. the side of the appellant was closed and case was put off to 29th September, 1980 for arguments. On 29th September, 1980 the appellant and his counsel were again absent and the case was put off to 14th October, 1980 for arguments. On 14th October, 1980 the argu ments of the respondent's counsel were heard and case was fixed for 30th of October, 1980 for orders. On 30th of October, 1980 only the Advocate for the respondent appeared and no appearance was made on behalf of the opponent and orders were pronounced. It is the case of the appellant that his counsel had wrongly noted the date of hear ing in the case as 30th of October, 1980 but there is nothing on the record to show that either the appellant or his counsel appeared on 30th October, 1980 when the case was fixed for pronouncement of order. Mr. Zuber Ahmad, the learned counsel for the appellant con tends that as the case was fixed for orders the appellant and his counsel could not make any application on that day. I have seen the R & P of the case before the Rent Controller. Even the application for grant of certified copy was filed by the counsel for the appellant on 3rd of November, 1980. If the appellant's counsel had noted the date as 30th of October 1980, he should have appeared before the Controller on that date and brought this fact to his notice. As admitted no appearance was made before the Controller on 30th October, 198 and even the application for certified copy was also made 3 days thereafter, I am not inclined to accept the explanation offered by the appellant for his .non‑appearance before the Controller between I0th August, 1980 to 30th October 1980. In so far on merits the plea of bona fide requirement is concerned it is contended by Mr. Zuber Ahmad that the respondent failed t discharge the burden inasmuch as she did not produce any evidence to establish that she has been asked to vacate the premises occupied by her. Respondent in her evidence before the Court in clear term stated that she was residing in a house with one of her relations and the fact has not been controverted. The respondent does not own any the premises in the locality and there is nothing on the record to show that she is in occupation of any other premises owned or possessed by her. In these circumstances the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller directing the opponent to vacate the premises on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement of the respondent was fully justified. I accordingly fined no ground to interfere with the order of the Rent Controller. The appeal is; therefore, rejected but there will be do order as to costs. The appellant is, however allowed four months time to vacate the premises subject to the condition that the appellant shall continue to deposit monthly rent in Court regularly according to the direction of Controller for this period. M. Y. M. Appeal rejected.