1986 PLP 710 (CLC)

(b) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 15(2)(vii) & 21(1)‑‑Bona fide requirement of landlord for his son‑‑Proof‑‑Evidence led by landlord and his son in respect of bona fide requirement fully consistent with averment made in eviction application and could not be shaken in. cross‑examination‑‑Nothing in rebuttal was brought by tenant to disprove said averment Rent Controller, held, was fully justified in holding that personal and bona fide requirement of landlord was established in circumstances. Farkhand Ali for Appellant. Wahid Bux Baloch for Respondent. Dates of hearing: 11th and 12th November, 1985 This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by the tenant/ appellant against the order of Rent Controller granting ejectment application No. 23/1982 instituted by the respondent on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal requirement. In the rent application the default was alleged against the appellant from July, 1980 to July, 1982. The rent application was instituted on 24‑8‑1982. In reply to the allegation of default the appellant in his written statement contended that they had paid the rent to the respondent upto June, 1982 on the agreed rate and there was no default on the date the application for eviction was instituted. It was further alleged in the written statement that the subsequent rent for the month of July onwards was remitted to the respondent and when it became due but the respondent deliberately avoided to receive the money order. In his evidence before the Rent Controller the respondent stated that every time the rent was paid to him by the appellant, he issued the rent receipts and this fact is not at all disputed either in the examination‑in‑chief or in the cross‑examination of the appellant. The appellant in his evidence produced a book before the Rent Controller containing the receipts of rent executed by the landlord from time to time in token of having received the amount of rent. This book produced by the respondent shows that a sum of Rs. 1,860 covering the rent from 1‑1‑1977 to 31‑9‑1979 was paid to the respondent by the appellant on 9‑7‑1979. Just after that receipt there is another receipt on the same book for a sum of Rs. 240 and it shows recovery of rent by the respondent from October, 1979 to January, 1980. There is yet another receipt in the same book for a sum of Rs. 300 but this receipt is disputed between the parties. While according to the respondent this receipt was given to the appellant in token of having received the rent from February, 1980 to June, 1980, it was the contention of the appellant before the Rent Controller that this receipt was issued by the respondent on 15‑6‑1982 in token of having received the rent from February, 1982 to June, 1982. In cross‑examination when the applicant /respondent was confronted with this receipt he gave the explanation that the receipt was actually issued in the month of June, 1980 and was for the month from February, 1980 to June, 1980 but the appellant has forged this receipt by changing the '0' appearing in the receipt to figure '2'. The Rent Controller also reached the conclusion after examining the material before him that the disputed receipt relates to the recovery of rent from February, 1980 to June, 1980. In this appeal the learned counsel for the appellant once again agitated the same point and contended before me that the disputed receipt was actually for the months of February, 1982 to June, 1982 and, therefore, there was no default on the part of the appellant. At the instance of the learned counsel for the parties I have myself examined the receipt with the aid of magnifying glass and it appears to the naked eye that there has been some over writing on the figure '0' which subsequently appears to have been changed from '0' to '2'. Apart from it there is a very strong reason which supports the contention of the respondent in this present case. The book is maintained by the tenant /appellant and it shows that the receipts were continuously issued for the period from 1‑1‑1977 to January, 1982. On the inquiry from the learned counsel for the appellant to explain regarding absence of the receipts for the period from June, 1980 to January, 1982 the learned counsel submitted that in the cross examination the appellant had explained that there was another book in which such receipt was obtained from the respondent but it has been lost. This explanation was rightly rejected by the learned Rent Controller as it was not in accord with the evidence produced by the parties. It is to be noted that nowhere in the written statement the appellant contended that some receipts issued by the respondent have been misplaced by him. In his own evidence also the appellant now here stated in the examination‑in‑chief that certain receipts which were issued by the respondent were misplaced by him. On the contrary in cross examination he categorically accepted the suggestion that every time the rent was received by the respondent he issued the receipt for the amount. The appellant though in his cross‑examination came out with the explanation that the other receipts have been misplaced but neither the dates of those receipts nor for the period they were issued for allegedly by the respondent have been stated in the evidence. In these circumstances the learned Rent Controller was fully justified in holding that the appellant has failed to prove the payment of rent up to June, 1982 and this being so it was rightly held that he was a defaulter in payment of rent from February, 1980 till filing of the rent application. The other ground taken in the application was regarding personal and bona fide requirement of the respondent. Personal and bona fide requirement of the respondent is pleaded in paragraph 5 of the applicant and it reads as follows:‑ "

5. That the premises is required by the applicant in good faith for the occupation and use of his elder son Rameshlal alias Maiji who is married and father of 3 children, within the ambit of section 15(2) (vii) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance YVII of 1979." The respondent /applicant in support of this plea examined himself as well as his eldest son Rameshlal alias Maiji for whom he required the premises. The evidence led by the landlord /respondent and his son are fully consistent with the averments made in the application and they could not be shaken in the cross‑examination. Nothing in rebuttal was brought by the appellant to disprove the allegation made in paragraph 5 which were fully supported by the statement made by the respondent B and his son in the evidence. In these circumstances the Rent Controller was fully justified in holding that the personal and bona fide requirement of the respondent has been established. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed but I will make no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. The appellant is allowed six months time to vacate the premises subject to the condition that he will continue to deposit monthly rent in Court during this period. H . B . T . Appeal dismissed.