1989 PLP 4342 (MLD)

Ss.15 & 21--Ejectment--Default in payment of rent--Tenant was ejected by Rent Controller who believed evidence brought on record by landlord--Tenant contended that landlord failed to adduce reliable evidence as both witnesses were landlord's tenants and therefore, interested and under influence of landlord- Veracity of witnesses produced by landlord could not be shaken in evidence and then evidence remained unrebutted and tenant did not even examine himself in support of his claim--Held, witnesses produced by landlord were neither interested nor under his influence--Order of ejectment was upheld. S.M. Rizvi for Appellant. Khaliq Humayoon for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th March, 1989. The respondent had sought the ejectment of the appellant on the ground of default in the payment of rent since February, 1984 till the date of the filing of the ejectment application in July, 1985. The rate of rent was stated to be Rs.120 per month. The appellant/tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and claimed that Sakhawat Hussain was the landlord and according to him the rate of rent was Rs.50 per month. The respondent, besides filing his own affidavit, also filed the affidavits of Mukhtar Ahmed and Shafiullah who are both tenants of the respondent in respect of two other shops in the same building. Both these witnesses have supported the respondent in his claim that the respondent is the owner of the building in question and their landlord as well as the landlord of the appellant, and that the rent of their shops was Rs.120 per month and the rent of the shop in possession of the appellant was also the same. Respondent also filed a receipt-cum-allotment order from the KDA showing that he was the owner/allottee of the house in which the demised shop is located. As against this the appellant did not lead any evidence whatsoever, not even filed his own affidavit. Under the circumstances, learned Rent Controller believed the evidence brought on record by the respondent and passed the ejectment order. Learned counsel for the appellant now argues before me that the respondent had failed to adduce reliable evidence and both of his witnesses were interested and under the influence of the respondent inasmuch as both of them were his tenants. Both of them may be tenants of the respondent all right but in my opinion they are neither interested nor under the influence of the respondent. They cannot be called interested witnesses merely because they are tenants in the adjoining shops of the same building. Besides, notwithstanding the worth of the evidence adduced by the respondent, the fact remains that the Veracity of the witnesses produced by the respondent could not be shaken in evidence and, moreover, this evidence goes unrebutted and the appellant did not even examine himself in support of his claim. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with costs. M.Y.H./M-846/K Appeal dismissed.