1985 PLP 1941 (CLC)

This is first appeal from the judgment of XIVth Rent Controller dated 27-3-1983, whereby ejectment application filed by respondent against her in respect of the rented premises was allowed and the appellant was directed to vacate the premises and hand over its possession to the respondent within one month.

2. The rented premises was on first-floor of a building on Plot No. O.T.8/16 situated in Old Town Karachi which admittedly belongs to the respondent. It was rented out to the appellant at Rs.20 per month. The appellant is alleged to be habitual defaulter. It is alleged by the landlady that no rent was paid by the appellant from 1-4-1981 to December 1981. Hence the ejectment application was filed on 23-1-1982.

3. The plea of the appellant in her written statement was that it was the practice of the respondent to collect rent in lumpsum after intervals of four to six months. Seven month's rent was sent by the appellant to the respondent by money order which was refused. Hence the appellant deposited the rent with the Rent Controller in Misc. Rent Case No.5056/1981.

4. In support of her case the respondent has examined her attorney Mr.Manzoor All Khan, Advocate who has deposed that the appellant is a habitual defaulter and that at the time of filing ejectment application eight months rent was due against her. In rebuttal the appellant has filed her affidavit and also the affidavit of Muhamnad Suleman, who have deposed that the practice of the respondent was to collect rent in lumpsum for four to six months at a time. The appellant had also produced money order coupon showing that rent for seven months was remitted to the respondent on 10-11-1981. The note at the foot of the money order coupon is very relevant which is reproduced hereunder: .

5. From the very admission of the appellant in her written statement, it is proved that she has been praying rent at intervals of four to six months and not regularly. Even the money order coupon shows that rent for seven months had accumulated against her. The note at the foot of the money order coupon does not show that the landlady had refused to accept the rent.

6. The fact that the landlady used to collect rent after intervals of four to six months in lump sum, does not absolve the tenant of the responsibility of payment of rent every month: Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Abdul Rashid v. Saleh Muhammad 1980 S C M R 506 in which the Supreme Court held as under: "The mere fact that a tenant has made it a habit not to pay the rent regularly every month, and that the landlord has tolerated his default for some time and accepted the rent paid at irregular intervals cannot in any way, be deemed to have established a practice of payment of rent whenever the tenant pleases or affect the liability of the tenant to pay the rent unless the landlord comes and collects it. Nor does it absolve the tenant from paying the rent every month. A landlord's acceptance of the rent paid to him at irregular intervals does not in any way, show that he does not expect it to be paid regularly every month, as the reason for receiving the delayed payment might be his decency, his desire to accommodate his tenant, his pre-occupation with his own work, his hesitation to go to Courts of law or his reluctance to incur the expenses and hazards of his litigation. The tenant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own negligence or of his having of deliberate non-payment of rent in time every month on the ground that the landlord has been accepting the same and argue that the same had given rise to a practice of irregular payment of rent." In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court the appellant cannot be absolved of the default committed by her on the ground that the landlady tolerated accepting rent previously after intervals of four to six months. There is no substance in this appeal as the appellant has been proved to be defaulter on her own admission. The appeal, is, therefore, dismissed, but the appellant is given four months time to vacate the premises. M.A.K.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.