1997 PLP 945 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th March, 1995. MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.‑‑‑This petition arises from the facts that Gul Khan Ahmed Qureshi respondent filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) for the ejectment of Fazal Elahi petitioner from shop No.5 on the ground of default in payment of rent before the Rent Controller, Karachi (Central). The application was resisted. In the written statement, the petitioner has stated‑‑ "it is submitted that the opponent made the payment of rent up to February 1992 which was received by the applicant, but on 8‑2‑1992 the previous landlady approached the opponent through her son and demanded rent from the month of May, 1991 claiming herself to be the owner of the demised premises and as such the opponent started depositing rent in the Court in Miscellaneous Rent Case No.121/92 from the month of March, 1992 regularly in the name of both the claimants of ownership but in compliance with the tentative rent order passed by this Hon'ble Court by consent of the parties, the same is being deposited regularly in Rent Case No.74/92 filed by the applicant for ejectment against the opponent on the ground of personal bona fide use which is pending before this Hon'ble Court and as such the opponent never committed default in the payment of rent."

2. The parties produced the affidavits and other documents in proof and disproof of their case. After hearing the arguments of the parties, Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed default in the payment of rent from the month of March, 1992. So, he allowed the ejectment application on 13‑3‑1994. Appeal filed by the petitioner against this order was rejected by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, on 20‑11‑1994.

3. Before us, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has deposited the rent from the month of March, 1992 in a rent case in the name of the respondent and previous landlady jointly. So, he has not made any wilful default in the payment of rent which could entail the penalty of his eviction from the shop. Similar arguments were made on behalf of the petitioner before the High Court. After having applied its mind to the relevant evidence, the High Court in its judgment has observed:‑‑ " ....It is an admitted position that after receiving notice under section 18 of the Ordinance the tenant (appellant) started paying the rent to the respondent/landlord but then suddenly he shifted to depositing the rent in Court in a Miscellaneous Rent case. This act of the appellant itself goes to show that the said practice was resorted to by him to cause harassment to the respondent. In these circumstances this itself amounts to defiance in payment of rent to the landlord."

4. On our independent assessment of the material before us we are convinced that the conclusion drawn by the High Court from the evidence on record was/is unexceptionable warranting no interference. The Rent Controller and the High Court have not flouted the provisions of relevant law nor have disregarded any relevant case‑law.

5. For what has been stated above, there being no merit, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. Three months' time is given to the petitioner to deliver the vacant possession of the shop to the respondent. A.A/F‑358/S Leave refused.