1988 PLP 1572 (MLD)

This Appeal is directed against the order dated 30‑7‑1984, passed by the learned XIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi in Rent Case No.433 of 1981, declining the appellant's application for ejectment on the ground of default for the period commencing from 1‑3‑1980 to December, 1980.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are, that the application filed the aforesaid rent application on the ground of default of the above period. The above application was resisted and inter alia para.2 of the written statement, the respondent explained his position. It was the case of the respondent that factually no rent was due and payable. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties dismissed the appellant's above application. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.

3. In support of the above appeal, Mr.Sadiq, learned counsel for the appellant has urged as follows:‑ "(1) That even if the statement of the respondent is accepted, there is admittedly default for the period of three months as no rent receipts for the months of April, May and June, 1980 have been produced or accounted for." The respondent, who is present in person has submitted that factually rent for the above three months was paid to the Munshi, who had promised to pass on the receipts on the pretext that the rent receipts book was not available. It seems that the landlord has filed ejectment case not only against the respondent but all the 25 tenants of the building on the ground of default. The defence taken by the respondent that the landlord was avoiding the acceptance of rent in order to create default inasmuch as the Munshi used to come to collect the rent stopped coming and collecting the rent. Thereupon, they went to the office of the appellant at Saddar as well as Ranchoreline. Thereafter, the respondent sent two money orders and when they were refused, he started depositing rent with the Rent Controller. It is true that there is no rent receipt produced by the respondent for the above three months but if the entire facts of the case are taken into consideration keeping in view the factum that the appellant has filed ejectment cases against all the tenants of the building on the ground of default, I am inclined to concur with the finding of the learned Rent Controller. The respondent has given a plausible defence in the circumstances of the present case. It is evident that the appellant is keen to get the building vacated from all the tenants and one of the way of doing so is to create default. The appeal has no merits, and therefore, it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./G‑70/K Appeal dismissed.