Find a Lawyer

Second Rent Appeal No. 212 of 1979, decided on 11th .March, 1981.

‑‑ Ss. 13 (2) (i) and 15 (1)‑Ejectment‑Default in payment of rent- Main ground in appeal being of appellant being not afforded proper opportunity to lead his defence‑Appellant submitting medical certificate for rest on account of dysentery but certificate not specifying as to' whether he was so seriously ill that he could not attend Court‑Case of dysentery, held, not of such nature as to call for two months' rest as advised by Doctor‑Rent Controller justified in holding appellant having adopted dilatory tactics‑Matter having been adjourned number of times and appellant having had plenty of opportunity to lead evidence but failing to do so finding of lower Court justified.

‑‑ Ss. 13 (2) (i) & 15 (1)‑Default in payment of rent‑‑Plea that land lord never came to collect‑ rent‑Held, no defence to advance‑Tenant under duty to tender rent to landlord or if he did not want to go to him to either send same by money order or deposit same in Court of Rent Controller.

Nemo for Appellant.

Badrudduja Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 11th March, 1981.

The appellant was ordered to be ejected on the ground of default in the payment of rent for the period of 1‑12‑1974 to 31‑8‑1975 by order dated 17‑10‑1978 passed by XXIV Civil Judge and VI Rent Controller, Karachi, The order was based on the sole testimony of the appellant. The appeal of the appellant was also dismissed on 25th February, 1979. The main ground of the appeal is that the appellant had not been afforded proper opportunity to lead his defence and that his side was closed. On 23‑9‑1978, the appellate had filed an application for adjournment on the ground that he was suffering from amoebic dysentery, which was supported by the certificate of a medical practitioner, who had recommended rest for two months with effect from 17‑9‑1978 to 16‑11‑1978. The certificate does not specify as to whether the appellant was so seriously ill that he could not attend the Court. In an case, a case of dysentery is not of such nature that two months rest is advised.

2. I am, therefore, not convinced that the appellant had a justification of not attending the Court on 24th September, 1978. The Rent Controller was justified to hold that the appellant adopted dilatory tactics. I find that the matter had been adjourned a number of times on account of the applications of the appellant and he, therefore, had plenty of opportunity to lead hi evidence, but he failed to avail of the same, therefore, the finding of the Lower Court that the appellant had plenty of opportunity to defend his position is justified.

3. Moreover the only defence in respect of non‑payment of rent taken by the appellant in his written statement was that the landlord/respondent had never come to collect the rent after 6‑i2‑1974. This is hardly any defence to advance as it is the duty of the tenant/appellant to tender the rent to the landlord/respondent and if the landlord does not come to the tenant/appellant 8 to collect the rent then the tenant/appellant should have either gone to the landlord/respondent and tendered the rent or if he did not want to go to him then he could have either sent the same by money order or could have deposit‑I ed the same in the Court of Rent Controller, which had not been done.

4. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the appellant was rightly directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent Mst Bilques Begum.

5. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal, but direct that the appellant would be evicted after two months from now.

M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.