1997 PLP 623 (CLC)

Briefly the facts relevant for the purposes of this appeal are that the present respondent had instituted the said rent case on the grounds of default in payment of rent and requirement for personal use as well as the appellant causing damage to the utility of the premises. The rent case was contested by the appellant. He had challenged the relationship of landlord and tenant. The case of the appellant is that he was inducted as tenant in the disputed premises by one Abdul Hadi, the brother of the present respondent, and that he used to pay the rent to him. His case is that the said Abdul Hadi had expired leaving behind one widow and a daughter and, therefore, the appellant was paying the rent to son of the present respondent on behalf of said Abdul Hadi who was the owner of the disputed premises. The appellant has further contended that he was not shown any document by the respondent if he was owner of these premises. His contention is that the agreement of rent dated 27‑2‑1988 is a forged agreement and it does not bear not bear his signatures. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the parties had examined themselves in evidence through the affidavit in evidence. The respondent had also examined the Notary Public Kazi Saeeduddin, who has attested the abovesaid rent agreement. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties and taken into consideration their evidence and documents placed on record was pleased to settle the following points for determination: (1) Whether there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? (2) Whether opponent is defaulter in payment of rent? (3) Whether opponent damaged the utility of the premises? (4) Whether applicant requires the premises for his personal bona fide use? (5) What should the order be? The learned Rent Controller was pleased to answer Points Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in favour of the respondent while point No.3 was answered in negative. Consequently the impugned judgment was passed. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. I have heard Mr. Kazi S. Atiq Siddiqi, the learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Raja Khan, the learned counsel for respondent. . The first point which requires consideration is as to whether their existed any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Contention of the learned counsel for appellant as stated above is that he was the tenant of brother of present respondent; and that the agreement dated 27‑2‑1988 is a forged agreement and does not bear his signatures. He has further submitted that according to this agreement, the rate of rent would be Rs.300 for each shop and not Rs.500. He has placed on record 10 handwritten receipts claiming to have been issued by the son of the present respondent. As against this Mr. Raja Khan, the learned counsel for respondent has argued that this agreement dated 27‑2‑1988 stands proved through the evidence of Notary Public Kazi Saeeduddin who has been examined in Court. Mr. Kazi Saeeduddin has fully supported the contention of the respondent. In these circumstances, the burden lay heavily on the appellant to show otherwise. No effort was made by the appellant to examine the said son of the respondent who is said to have received the amount on behalf of deceased Abdul Hadi. Even the receipts which are produced on record by the appellant himself go to show that the rate of rent was Rs.500 per month; and that the same was received by the son of the respondent without specifying in the receipts if the same was on behalf of deceased Abdul Hadi. There is no reason as to why the appellant did not examine the said son of respondent who could be the best witness in these circumstances. He has also not bothered to examine any witness from the heirs left by deceased Abdul Hadi. The respondent has produced a City Survey extract which shows that the shop in dispute was transferred to the respondent through a P.T.D. in the year 1966 and such mutation was affected in the City Survey Record in the year 1974 which is much before the execution of the above referred to rent agreement. In these circumstances, I have no other option but to concur with the findings of the Rent Controller that the relationship of landlord and tenant did exist. In these circumstances, the findings on this point have been maintained. As regards the other points, it may be observed that in a case where the tenant defies the right of the landlord and challenges the relationship and the same stands proved against him than no other course is to be followed but ejectment has to be ordered. However, even on the question of default it is an admitted position if the version of the appellant is accepted that he did not pay the rent to the respondent who received the rent on behalf of one deceased Abdul Hadi the case of the present appellant merits no consideration. However, assuming that these receipts were issued by the son of the respondent on behalf of his father the applicant than also the default stands proved. The learned counsel has referred to contents of para.3 of the agreement dated 27‑2‑1988 to the extent that an amount of Rs.5,000 was deposited with the landlord by way of security deposit and the arrears, if any, could be adjusted against them. It may be observed that para.3 very specifically provides that the said deposit of Rs.5,000 is refundable to the appellant at the time he vacates the premises after adjusting all kinds of arrears/dues. This condition further states "no rent shall be adjustable out of the said security deposit". This condition by itself excludes the adjustment of arrears of rent against the security deposit. Thus, the same could not have been done by the landlord. In view of the above discussion I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Rent Controller even on the point of default. In these circumstances, finding no cogent reasons to interfere with the judgment of the Rent Controller I find no force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed, with costs. The appellant shall hand over the vacant possession to the ‑respondent within 60 days from the date of this judgment. A.A./A‑22/K Appeal dismissed.