1992 PLP 464 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S.15‑‑‑Ejectment application‑‑‑Maintainability of‑‑‑No obligation upon a landlord to file separate ejectment applications if more than one premises were given by him to a tenant on rent especially when tenant himself had been depositing cumulative rent for both premises. S.M. Shahudul Huque for Applicant. Muhammad Zubair Qureshi for Respon ent. . Date of hearing: 17th February, 1991. This is an application for stay of ejectment of the appellant in pursuance of the impugned order. Mr. Zubair Oureshi has pointed out that the opponent has himself admitted in his evidence that he had deposited tie rent for the month of July 1985 in Court on 31‑10‑1985 and the rent for the month of August 1985 on 30‑11‑1985. It is provided in section 15, subsection (2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, that the Rent Controller "shall" make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises‑if he is satisfied that the tenant has failed to pay the rent in respect of the premises in his possession within 60 days after the expiry of the period fixed by mutual agreement between the tenant and landlord for payment of rent and in absence of such agreement within 15 days after the rent has become due for payment. In either case, the rent of July 1985 had become due latest by 1st of August 1985 and, therefore, even the period of 60 days was over by 1st of October 1985. Similarly, rent of August 1985 had become due on 1‑9‑1985 and the period of 60 days was over by 1‑11‑1985. Hence not only that the appellant has himself admitted that he had not deposited the rent in time for these two months but it is also clear from the above discussion that he is clear defaulter within the meaning of section 15 (2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The ejectment on the ground of default is mandatory and is no more discretionary. It was contended by Mr. Shahudul Huque that two separate halls were taken on rent by the appellant from the respondent at the rate of Rs.800 per month whereas the respondent had filed ejectment application of both .these halls together in such a way that it appears that there was a single tenancy, hence the application was not maintainable. I do not agree with the contention. There is no such obligation upon a landlord to file separate ejectment applications if more than one premises are given to a single tenant on rent. Even the appellant himself had been depositing cumulative rent of Rs.1,600 for both these halls in his single miscellaneous rent case in the Court. Hence this ground of the appellant is also not tenable. Lastly, it was contended by Mr. Shahudul Huque that the appellant was a statutory body and was doing a noble job, hence it deserved sympathy. I do not agree with contention. It was all the more obligatory upon such a body to see that it pays rent regularly. The ejectment on the ground of default, as I have already pointed out above, is mandatory and is no more discretionary. The mere fact that the FRA has been admitted does not entitle an appellant to the grant of stay. The respondent is a widow and, therefore, it is the respondent who deserves sympathy rather than the appellant. I do not find any merit in this stay application. CMA No.1400/90 is therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./N‑385/K Stay application dismissed.