1984 PLP 1142 (MLD)

Rashid Akhtar Qureshi for Appellant. Muhammad Iqtedar Ali for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd September, 1984. This is an appeal challenging the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 31-5-1980 passed by him in Rent Case No. 2594 of 1975 ordering ejectment of the appellant on an application under section 13 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, moved by the respondents.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the said order on two grounds first, that the application is not maintainable as it has been signed be respondent No.1 on his own behalf as well as on behalf of other three landlords. And secondly the learned Rent Controller is not justified to hold the appellant as defaulter.

3. In support of his contention. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on three cases namely. Mehdi Hassan v. Ghulam Muhammad and others P L D 1964 Lah.648; Din Muhammad v. Abdul Aziz P L D 1967 Lah 653 and Messrs Bombino Ltd. v. Messrs Selmor International Ltd. and another P L D 1983 S C 155.

4. I find that none of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is applicable to the facts of the present case. In the first case there is only an observation that the Rent Controller could not order the ejectment unless the objection about the execution and the validity of the Power-of-Attorney was decided by him. In the present case the learned Rent Controller has decided the objection.

5. The second case is also not of any relevance to the point involved in the present case as in the case named, there is some observation with respect to the applicability of Article No. 164 of the Limitation Act to applications under Order IX, rule 7, C.P.C., which is not the case here.

6. The third case decided by the Honourable Supreme Court is also not applicable as it speaks about the application of some equitable principles contained in Civil Procedure Code to the proceedings before the Rent Controller.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent on the maintainability of the ejectment application relied on cases namely Chaudhry Muhammad Ali a Co. v. Dr.Sirajul Haq and 2 others P L D 1972 Quetta 5 and Khalique Ahmad v. Abdul Ghani and another P L D 1973 S C

214. These two cases substantially support the proposition that the application signed by one landlord in a matter of ejectment is competent and maintain?able. In any case, I find that besides the respondent No.1 who signed the application, two other landlords have examined themselves in the lower Court to prove the default against the appellant. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, no force.

8. As regards the second contention the only ground taken before me by the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is not sure as to which of the landlords used to collect the rent. Therefore, according to him, the plea of the appellant that the receipts for the rent paid by the appellant to the landlords were not issued to the appellant is untenable. It has come on record that the appellant is not the only tenant in the building. There are other tenants also. The respondents have produced the counterfoil of the Receipt Book from No.101 to

200. This Receipt Book contains only three receipts issued by the respondents in favour of the appellant and the last receipt No.196 Exh.4 shows that a sum of Rs.120 was received on 29-1-1975 towards the rent for the months of November and December, 1974. As the period for default was alleged to be January, 1975 to June, 1975 and finding no counterfoil for the Receipt Book for the year 1975 on record, I directed the learned counsel for the respondent to produce the counterfoil of the Receipt Book for the year 1975 which he has accordingly produced now before me. This Receipt Book contains counterfoil 100 receipts numbering from 201 to 300 showing the rent paid but there is no receipt in the name of the appellant by the tenants during the year 1975 onwards. In any case, the appellant's contention is that he paid the rent but no receipt was issued to him. This plea cannot be accepted as true for the production of the counterfoil of the Receipt Book it is quite evident that the respondent have been issuing regular receipts. in respect of the rent of the building received from the tenants. There seems to be no reason as to why the receipts will be denied to him when the receipts for the payment made by him earlier and received by the respondents have been regularly issued to him.

9. In view of the above, I find no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Rent Controller. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs. M. I.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.