1986 PLP 1291 (MLD)

‑‑S.13‑‑Ejectment‑‑Personal requirement‑‑Landlord along with his family members living in Kuwait for last twenty years‑‑Landlord produced no documentary evidence in proof of his claim for house in dispute‑‑Landlord stated that he had produced documents in another case which he had filed on ground of personal requirement and seeking permission to produce document as an additional evidence‑‑Landlord, held, could not be allowed to produce additional evidence at appellate stage although his case filed separately was likely to be considered on its own merits. Habibullah Jatoi for Appellant. S.M. Rizvi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th April, 1986. This appeal is from the order, dated 15‑3‑1982, passed by the Controller whereby he rejected the application under section 13 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, filed by the appellant on the grounds of default in payment of the rent by the respondent and personal requirement of the premises by the appellant.

2. According to the case of the appellant monthly tenancy commenced from 15th of each month and the respondent did not pay the rent for the months commencing from 15th August, 1977. The appellant filed the application on 1st November, .1977.

3. The defence taken in the written statement by the respondent was that he had deposited the rent in Miscellaneous Rent Case No.4156 of 1977, up‑to‑date. The rent for the period commencing from 15th August; 1977 to 14th November, 1977, was deposited on 30‑11‑1977, 15 days late. Thus, according to the appellant the respondent committed default in payment of rent for one month as he deposited the rent for the month commencing from 15th August, 1977, which according to law should have been paid by 15th November, 1977. The explanation given in paragraph 1 of the written statement by the respondent was that the appellant alongwith his family was residing in Kuwait for the last 20 years and in his absence he had first authorised one Nadeem Yusuf son of Abdul Malik to collect rent on his behalf and he had accordingly paid the rent to him and subsequently on his refusal to accept the rent he addressed a letter to the appellant at his Kuwait address. He further stated that in reply to his letter the appellant instructed him to pay rent to Mrs. Nadeem Yusuf. For sometime she accepted the rent and passed on receipts but thereafter she also refused whereupon he moved the Rent Controller for permission to deposit the rent in Court. This story of the respondent has been believed by the Controller who has rejected the application of the appellant and I am of the view that the Controller is right in rejecting the application. It was the duty o the appellant to have examined Mrs. Nadeem Yusuf that she had not refused to accept the rent as stated in the written statement, but she was not examined.

4. As regards the personal requirement the Controller has stated in the impugned order that it is an admitted position that the appellant alongwith his family members was residing in Kuwait for the last 2 years and that the appellant's case was that his family returned t Karachi but he did not produce any documentary' proof such as extract from passport, Ration Card or even admission slip from any educational institution in proof of his claim. I asked Mr. Habibullah Jatoi whether the appellant placed any document in proof of the allegation on record. In reply he stated that he may be permitted to lead additional evidence now. To this submission Mr. Rizvi replied that the appellant has already filed another case on the ground of personal requirement and in which case the evidence has already been partly recorded and that he is still residing in Kuwait.

5. I therefore do not consider it necessary at this stage to allow production of additional evidence in these proceedings. However, I have no doubt that the appellant's claim in the new case will be considered on its own merits, as Mr. Jatoi on a query by me stated that the appellant has already produced documentary evidence in the new proceeding. So far as this appeal is concerned I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Controller and, therefore, dismiss i but without costs. M.Y.H. Appeal dismissed.