1996 PLP 1016 (CLC)

The appellant examined himself in the Court so also the respondent. A letter dated 8‑8‑1992 of the Advocate of the respondent addressed to the appellant was produced as Exh. "A" whereas another letter addressed by the appellant's Advocate to the respondent's counsel dated 26‑11‑1992 was also produced as Exh. "B". The learned Rent Controller set the following points for determination:‑‑ (1) Whether opponent is defaulter? (2) Whether the applicant needs disputed tenement bona fidely in good faith for his use and use of his children? (3) What should the decree be Points Nos. l and 2 are decided by the Rent Controller in affirmative, as such, the impugned order was passed ordering the appellant to vacate the premises within 30 days. On 12‑3‑1995 it was ordered by the Court that as the affidavit‑in evidence of the respondent does not fully reflect on his personal requirement it was necessary to further examine him under section 21(3) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. So, his further statement was recorded on 3‑9‑1995 and it was ordered that evidence of the appellant be recorded, if he so desired. As such, on 22‑10‑1995 evidence of appellant was also recorded. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Tenancy in this case is admitted by the appellant, as such, burden lies on the tenant to prove that he has not committed default in payment of rent. It is also admitted by him that he is in occupation of the rented premises since 1968 and. has not paid rent to the landlord since then. The reasons for not paying rent to the respondent as advanced by the appellant is that no one came to collect the rent, and he did not know the address of the respondent and on receipt of notice he immediately deposited the rent in the Court. For the first time the rent was deposited in Court on 15‑11‑1992 amounting to Rs.648 which would be the rent for three years. Second time on 31‑1‑1993 amounting to Rs.216 and third time on 13‑12‑1992 amounting to Rs.216 which would also be for one year in each case. Having admitted default in cross‑examination as well as deposit of rent in lump sum for at last three years on 15‑11‑1992, it is to be seen whether the reasons advanced by the appellant are cogent and legal. No tenancy agreement has been produced by any of the party and in that case if the rent is not paid within sixty days of the due date for payment, default is committed and the tenant can be ejected on this ground. The landlord is not under any obligation to come to the tenant for collection of rent. It is not possible to believe that the tenant did not know address of his landlord. Even otherwise subsection (3) of section 10 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance provides that rent can be deposited with the Controller within whose jurisdiction the premises is situated. In the instant case, the tenant did deposit the rental amount on 15‑11‑1992 which he could have done earlier also. It is also admitted by the appellant that he' did not give notice to the respondent regarding the deposit of the rent in the Court as no address was available to him. If the reason for not paying the rent earlier or depositing in the Court, is that appellant did not know address of the respondent/landlord then how he has deposited the rent after receipt of notice. Receipt of notice 18 S.R.P:O. is necessary only if there is change of ownership of the premises, but in the instant case there is no change in the ownership, as such, notice was not necessary. First notice to the appellant is dated 8‑8‑1992 and the latter of the appellant's advocate dated 26‑11‑1992 acknowledges the receipt of notice is dated 10‑10‑1992. The appellant did not clarify as to when he had received the notice as the time for depositing the rent within 30 days start from the date of receipt of the notice. In these circumstances, the Trial Court was justified in holding that the appellant has committed default in the payment of rent and as such liable to be ejected. It has been held in Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui v. Kamaluddin (1992 MLD 1150) that the relationship of landlord and tenant having been established, non‑payment of any rent by appellant to respondent from the very inception of tenancy would render appellant liable to eviction on ground of default. Same view is taken in cases Feroze Ahmed v. Mst. Zohra Khatoon (1992 CLC 735), Abdur Rasheed v. Hanifur Rehman (1994 MLD 955) and Muhammad Subhan v. Bilquees Begum (1994 SCMR 1507). As for personal bona fide need of the respondent is concerned, the appellant in his evidence stated that there are four vacant houses belonging to the respondent in the same compound and three in Korangi are occupied by him and his family. In his deposition the respondent has admitted that two of the houses are in occupation of tenants, and matter is in litigation. This leaves two houses lying vacant in possession of the respondent and the same can be occupied by the respondent and his family. There is no evidence to the effect that these houses will not be sufficient for accommodating respondent and his family. In view of A the above fact that there are two other vacant houses belonging to the respondent where the family of the respondent can be accommodated, the need of the respondent for the disputed premises is not bona fide, the findings of the Rent Controller regarding bona fide need of the respondent is not based on proper appreciation of the evidence. As the appellant has committed default, he is liable to be ejected from the premises. As such, ejectment order of the Rent Controller is maintained on the point of default and appellant is directed to vacate the premises within sixty days of this order. H.B.T./A‑1603/K Order accordingly.