1988 PLP 1304 (MLD)

This appeal is directed against an order dated 17‑7‑1984 passed by the learned Xth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi in Rent Case No.4181 of 1978 declining the present appellant's application for ejectment which was filed on 16‑9‑1978 on the ground of default for the period commencing from May, 1978 to August, 1978. The above application was resisted by the present respondent. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed two issues. The appellant in support of the case examined his son and attorney Syed Muhammad Ali Salman, whereas respondent examined himself. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties dismissed the above application. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.

2. In support of the above appeal Mr. Khalilur Rahman, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that even if the alleged receipt Ext.A/1 is to be relied upon (which is denied by the appellant), it indicates that the rent for the months of April and May was paid and, therefore, there was default for the month of June after excluding the statutory period of 60 days. 3.On the other hand Mr. Nisar Ali, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in para.3 of the rent application the appellant has submitted the factum of the receipt of rent upto January, 1978 and also the receipt of Rs.30 which could cater for the months of February, March and April and that the receipt of Rs.20 would be for the months of May and June and not April and May as stated therein.

4. The learned Rent Controller has held that factually the above receipt represents the rent for the months of May and June. In order to arrive at the above conclusion he has given cogent reasons, namely, that the appellant has admitted in his rent application the receipt of the rent upto the month of January, 1978 and also the receipt of Rs.30. If the above sum of Rs.30 is to be adjusted against the rent for the months of February, March and April, in that event, the above receipt which acknowledges the receipt of Rs.20 would be rent for the months of May and June as held by the learned Rent Controller. The appellant has denied his signature on Ext. A/1 but the learned Rent Controller on the basis of the comparison of the signature on this document with four specimen signatures on ExtA/2 has concluded that factually this receipt contains the signature of the appellant's son and attorney. I have also compared the same and I am inclined to concur with the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the above question. In this view of the matter, if the rent for the months of May and June was paid by the respondent against the above receipt, the rent due was for the months of July and August as 60 days had not expired from the due date for the month of July, 1978 at the time of the filing of the rent case. In my view, the learned Rent Controller has rightly held that there was no default. He has also held that the respondent is an illiterate person and, therefore, the discrepancy as to the months m the receipt is understandable,

5. For the aforesaid re sons the appeal has no merit and it is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./I‑46/K Appeal dismissed.