1987 PLP 714 (CLC)

2. Respondent Mst. Seems Begum is owner of a building known as "Seems Estates" bearing No. 1‑K/7 situated in Nazimabad whereas appellants are tenants in respect of Godowns Nos.17 and 18 on monthly rent Rs.700 and 8.900 respectively.

3. Two separate Rent Cases bearing Nos.1131 of 1981 and 1132 were filed by respondent on 5‑3‑1981 on the ground of default in payment of monthly rent for 5 months from 1st October, 1980 to February, 1981.

4. The appellants in their written statements stated that there was mutually agreed between the parties that appellants would tender rent on receiving rent bills from the respondent and they used to pay rent after getting such bills. It is further stated that in the month of November, 1980 the representative of the respondent suggested the appellant to purchase the premises. The negotiations in this behalf ensued between the parties which are still continuing when these cases were filed. In the meanwhile, the bills were not sent, therefore, payment could not be made.

5. In support of that case one Bashir Ahmed was examined before the Rent Controller on behalf of the appellant while Razi Ahmed attorney of the respondent was examined on behalf of Mst Seems landlady

6. I have heard Mr. H. A . Rehmani for the appellant in both the cases and Mr. Ghulam Ali Khokhar for the respondent.

7. In both the rent cases, a common point of default has been taken and the written statements and evidence laid by the parties are identical, therefore, I propose to dispose of both the appeals by this common order.

8. Mr. Rehmani during his arguments submitted that negotiations between the parties for the purchase of premises were going on, therefore, rent was not tendered. He has also argued that there was a practice between the parties that rent will only be tendered when bills are received.

9. Mr. Ghulam Ali Khokhar submitted that there was no practice between the parties and receipts produced by the attorney of the respondent clearly show that all along rent was tendered every month by the appellants. It is contended by the learned counsel that respondent never desired to sell the premises as such question of negotiations for the sale of the premises on behalf of the respondent does not arise. He submitted that appellants have committed wilful default in payment of rent for 5 months and continued to be defaulter.

10. In both the rent cases, the default for payment of rent for months has been taken and it is proved from the record that till filing of the rent cases no rent was paid or any effort made to tender the rent. The default of 5 months for both the premises has been admitted in the written statements and from the evidence of Bashir Ahmad partner of the appellant's firm. The plea taken by the appellant that negotiations for purchase of the premises were going on does not get support from documentary evidence. The Rent receipts produced by both the parties in the evidence clearly show that rent was received by the respondent every month from which it is clear that there was no practice of receiving the accumulated rent by the respondent. The rent cases were filed on 5th March, 1981. The appellants sent notice on 24th March, 1981 Exh. asking the respondent to send the bills to enable' him to make payment from month to month. This is after the filing of rent cases. Appellants have not made any attempt to tender the arrears or future rent even after filing of the rent cases. It is only in May, 1982, they started depositing the rent in Court.

11. The appellants have committed wilful default in payment of rent for 5 months as disclosed in the rent applications and this fact has been admitted by them. Not only this but up to May, 1982, they have B continued to be defaulter for which they have not given any reason. In the circumstances, in my view, the Rent Controller has rightly allowed the rent applications and ordered the eviction of the appellants. For the reasons stated above both the appeals are dismissed.

12. Mr. H . A . Rehmani in the alternate submitted that in case appeals are not allowed the appellants be given some time to vacate the premises. Appellants are using the godowns for commercial purposes and they need some time to get other accommodation. Considering this fact, I allow 6 months rime of the appellants to hand over vacant possession of both the godowns to the respondent. M. Y. H. /5156/K Appeal dismissed.