1985 PLP 1939 (CLC)

This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in directed against the order of Rent Controller dated 27-3-1983 granting the ejectment application of the respondent on the ground of default and personal requirement. The respondent had pleaded default against the appellant in the rent case from November, 1977 and the rent case was filed on 2-8-1978. The respondent in his written statement contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as he was tenant of one Muhammad Yahyah Siddiqui who was the owner of the house in his occupation. It is an admitted position in the case that the property was owned by Mst. Muniba Khatoon, wife of Muhammad Yahyah Siddiqui and the said Muniba Khatoon sold the property to applicant No.1 through a registered sale deed. It is also an admitted position that after the purchase of the property from Mst. Muniba Khatoon the respondent No.1 served a notice on the appellant for paying future monthly rent to him. It is not disputed that the notice under section 13-A issued by respondent No.1 was received by the appellant. The appellant in his, written statement also admitted that Muhammad Yahyah refused to accept rent after the sale of the property in favour of applicant No.1. In spite of refusal by Muhammad Yahyah to receive the rent of the premises and receipt of notice under section 13-A the appellant deliberately deposited future monthly rent in Court in the name of Muhammad Yahyah. In these circumstances the Rent Controller rightly held the appellant as defaulter in payment of rent. In so far the personal and bona fide requirement urged by the respondent No.1 is concerned the defence taken by the appellant in his written statement as that the respondent No.1 is living comfortably with his family in the house presently occupied by him which consisted of three rooms. However, in his evidence before the Rent Controller the opponent in addition to the plea raised in the written "statement also contended that the respondent No.1 had purchased the house occupied by the appellant for .making a profit and immediately upon purchase of the house he started negotiating with the appellant for sale of the house. However, the Rent Controller after analysing the entire evidence led by the parties rightly came to the conclusion that the present accommodation with respondent No.1 was not sufficient for his needs and accordingly allowed the application on this ground. I have gone through the evidence recorded by the Rent Controller with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and I find nothing in the evidence which showed that the requirement of the applicant was not bona fide or that the application was mala fide. The evidence led by respondent No.1 before the Rent Controller is consistent with the averments made in his application and is fully corroborated by other independent evidence produced before the Court. Neither the evidence of respondent No.l for the evidence of the other witnesses produced by him could be shaken in cross-examination nor anything contrary was brought in rebuttal by the appellant to prove mala fides on the part of respondent No.l. I accordingly confirm the findings of the Rent Controller on both the issues. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. The appellant is however allowed six months time to vacate the premises subject to the condition that during this period he will continue to deposit monthly rent in Court at the rate directed by the Rent Controller. In case the respondent fails to vacate the premises after the expiry of above period he will be evicted from the premises without any notice. M.A.K.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.