1994 PLP 578 (CLC)

S. Hassan Asghar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd September, 1992. This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is directed against the order dated 15‑3‑1988 passed by the learned Ist Senior Civil Judge & Rent Controller at Karachi (South) in Rent Case No.487/1976 whereby he dismissed the appellant's application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are the owners and landlords of tenement No.8 of building situated on Plot No.K‑7/432 near Baghdadi Police Station Lyari Quarters, Karachi and one Abdul Hannan of whom. the present respondents are legal representative, was their tenant at the rate of Rs5 per month. It is alleged that the deceased respondent was a persistent defaulter in payment of rent and failed to pay rent for the last 85 months from 1‑12‑1968 to 31‑12‑1975. Further the respondent carried out additions, alterations and constructions at the demise premises thereby impairing materially the value and utility of the premises. The said deceased contested the ejectment application denying that he was a defaulter at any time. It was contended that the appellants never issued any receipt from the very beginning of tenancy and the object of the appellant in filing eviction proceedings against him is nothing but to give the demised premises on increased rent after his eviction. The appellants examined their attorney Sirajuddin whereas deceased respondent examined himself. In so far as the second ground is concerned no satisfactory evidence was led by the appellants and this ground was also not pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants, hence it must fail. As to the first ground of non‑payment of rent it would be, interesting to reproduce the reasoning given by the Controller in respect of his finding thereon as follows:‑‑ "In support of his contention attorney of the applicant has not produced a single counterfoil of the rent receipts in order to prove that the rent receipts were ever issued by him to the Opponent, moreover if the Opponent failed to pay him the rent for more than 6 years then why he remained silent, and why he did not serve the Opponent with the notice and file ejectment application against him". The reasoning of the learned Controller on the face of it is untenable and perverse. A landlord is not required to issue rent receipts which necessarily must have counterfoils. No adverse presumption can be inferred against him because of their non‑existence. Besides, it is not the case of the appellants/landlords that they had been issuing rent receipts having counterfoils, nor the respondent tenant took up the plea that the appellants used to maintain receipt books containing counterfoils. It is also to be noted that the appellants were not cross‑examined on this point by the respondent so also on their plea as to non‑issuance of rent receipts. Further, indulgence shown by a landlord in not taking steps for eviction of his tenant for a long time on the ground of non‑payment of rent or his failure to serve the latter with a legal notice before filing the ejectment application, will not by itself give rise to a presumption that the tenant had been making payment of rent to the landlord. Hence, the appeal is accepted and the respondents are directed to vacate the premises in question within six months hereof, provided they continue to deposit current and future rent in terms of Controller's order. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./S‑1027/K Appeal accepted.