1985 PLP 1949 (CLC)

This appeal by the landlord is directed against the order of Rent Controller, dated 14th December,1981 rejecting the application of the appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent, electricity and gas charges. The admitted position in the case is that at the time the rent application was instituted the rent agreement which was executed between the parties on 1st August, 1977 had expired and no further agreement extending the period of tenancy was executed between the parties. In the application the default was alleged from 1st July, 1978 in respect of monthly rent which was payable at the rate of Rs.950 per month besides electricity and gas charges amounting to Rs.649.21. The tenant in his written statement denied the default both in respect of the monthly rent as well as for electricity and gas charges. It was averred in the written statement filed by the tenant that the bills for electricity and gas charges are received directly by the landlord and thereafter on the basis of the reading in those bills the charges are recovered from time to time. It was also contended in the written statement that before the filing of application the tenant was not informed by the landlord about the quantum of gas and electricity charges due against him. The Rent Controller after recording the evidence came to the conclusion that there was no default on the part of the tenant/ respondent and accordingly rejected the application for eviction. Mr. Abdul Aziz Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant/ landlord contends that the finding of the Rent Controller is contrary to the evidence on record as there was clear default both in respect of the monthly rent for the period from July, 1978 to November, 1978 as well as the gas and electricity charges which were mentioned in the application. In the evidence produced before the Rent Controller it has come on record that after the expiry of rent agreement the respondent sent a cheque dated 27th August, 1978 in the sum of Rs.1,900 covering the rent for the months of July and August, 1978. Thereafter another cheque in the sum of Rs.1,900 was sent by the tenant on 25th October, 1978 covering the rent for the month of September and October, 1978. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before me is that these cheques were not a valid tender of rent as these cheques were sent to the appellant for and on behalf of the firm known as Associated Engineering Complex and since this firm has nothing to do e tenancy, therefore, the landlord was justified in refusing to accept the wish these cheques. The contention raised by the learned councel is devoid of any merits. The cheques were forward under the two letters, dated October 25, 1978 and 27th August, 1978 which reads as under:-- Registered A.D. "Mr. Wajahatullah Akhoon, October 25, 1978. 5-N, Block No.6, Fourth Street, P.E.C.H.S., Karachi. Re: Payment of Rent. Dear Sir, Enclosed herewith please find Cheque No.980003, "dated October 25, 1978 for Rs.1,900 being rent for the month of September and October 1978, for the first floor of 614-4C, Central Commercial Area, P.E.C.H.S., Karachi. Please acknowledge receipt. Yours truly, Sd/- Mahmood-ur-Rab."

Registrered A. D. Mr. Wajahatullah Akhoon, August 27, 1978. 5-N, Block No.6, Fourth Street, P.E.C.H.S., Karachi. Re: Payment of Rent. Dear Sir, Enclosed herewith please find Cheque No.978828, dated August 27, 1978, for Rs.1,900 being rent for the month of July and August, 1978 for the first floor of 614-4C, Central Commercial Area P. E.C.H.S., Karachi. Please acknowledge receipt. Your truly, Mahmood-ur-Rab. " A reading of the above two letters will show that these cheques were forwarded by the respondent in his personal capacity for discharging the liability of rent in respect of the premises rented to him. There is no indication whatsoever in these two letters that the I rent was being tendered or sent to the applicant on behalf of any firm. Apart from it in the letter, dated 12th September, 1978 written by Nasir Shahmir, Advocate on behalf of the appellant the reason for return of the cheque is given in paragraph 4 as follows:-- "

4. That, we find that by a letter, dated 27-8-1978 you have forwarded a cheque of Rs.1,900 by way of rent for the months of July and August, 1978, which is not acceptable to our client because after the expiry of the period of 11 months of your tenancy under the said agreement, he has no intent to you any extension and besides, without prejudice to the above, you have also committed default, and have also failed to pay the electric and gas charges." Although in paragraph 5 of the said letter it is also mentioned by the said Advocate that the cheque appears to have been sent by some managing partner for and on behalf of Associated Engineering Complex but the main reason as pointed out earlier was given in paragraph 4 of that letter. Apart from it after the second cheque was returned to the respondent the respondent in his letter, dated 17th December, 1978 has clearly stated that the tender of rent was not on behalf of the firm but was for his own personal account. In these circumstances the Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that there was no wilful default on the part of the respondent in paying the rent for the months of July to October, 1978. It is not disputed before me that after the expiry of rent agreement which expired in June, 1978 the tenancy agreement was not renewed for any further period and therefore as rightly observed by the Rent Controller the rent could be paid by the tenant within 60 days of the rent becoming payable. In so far the default alleged by the appellant in respect of electricity and gas charges are concerned the admitted position according to the evidence on record is that the bills for consumption of electricity and gas charges were received by the landlord directly from the authorities concerned. There is nothing in evidence to indicate that before filing of the application in Court the appellant at any time intimated to respondent about the quantum of gas and electricity charges due against him. The learned counsel for the appellant very vehemently contended before me that in the letter, dated 12th September, 1978 written by Mr. Nasir Shahmir, Advocate, to the respondent it was stated that the gas and electricity charges have not been paid by the respondent. I have already reproduced paragraph 4 of this letter in the earlier part of this order and it is quite clear that although it is mentioned in that letter (which of course is disputed by the respondent having been received by him) there is only mention of electricity and gas charges but there is no mention about the quantum of gas and electricity charges due in respect of the premises occupied by the respondent. In the peculiar circumstances of this case where the electricity and gas bills were admittedly received by the landlord it was the duty of the landlord to have intimated the quantum of these charges which were payable by the respondent before he could be said to have committed default. There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs. M.A.K. Appeal dismissed.