Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal, No. 13 of 1979, decided on 7th November, 1982.

S. 13‑Eviction proceedings‑Rent Controller on assumption that rent for defaulted months of October, 1974 to January, 1975, remitted by tenant through money order after expiry of 60 days ordering his eviction‑First Appellate Court reversing order of Rent Controller observing that Rent Controller should have exercised discretion in favour of tenant‑Landlord denying in cross‑examination that rent for disputed months remitted by tenant through money order which he refused or ever collected rent in lump sum for 5 to 6 months at a time Reversal of Rent Controller orders by First Appellate Court not found justified‑Eviction of tenant ordered, in circumstances.

P L D 1976 Lab. 132 ref.

S. Zabir Hussain for Appellant.

G. M. Qureshi for Respondent.

Date of hearing 7th November, 19G2.

This second rent appeal is directed against the order of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 30th November, 1978 ' The IInd Additional District Judge, acting as the first appellate. authority under the provisions of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, reversed the findings of the Rent Controller, granting ejectment of the respondent on the ground of 4cfault and dismissed the rent application.

The admitted position in the case is that at the time of institution of rent case, rent was due from October, 1974, to January, 1975. It was contended before the Controller that the rent was remitted for the defaulted months by money order. Although ‑it was not proved in the evidence that rent was sent by money order but the Controller on assumption that the rent was remitted as alleged found that it was sent after the expiry of 601 days period and accordingly ordered the eviction of respondent from the premises. The first appellate authority, however took the view that it was a case of a solitary default and, therefore, in view of judgment reported in P L D 1976 Lah. 152 the Rent Controller should have exercised the discretion in favour of respondent. Mr. G. M. Qureshi, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the first appellate authority on the reasoning given in the impugned order. I have gone through the evidence in the case and found that the appellant in his cross‑examination bad denied that the 4 rent for the disputed month was remitted by money order which he refused. The appellant also denied in cross‑examination that he used to collect rent in lump sum for 5 to 6 months at a time. No evidence was led in rebuttal by the respondent. In these circumstances, the Rent Controller rightly held that the respondent committed default in payment of rent and ordered his ejectment. The reversal of the finding of the Rent Controller by the first appellate Court was, therefore, not justified. The authority P L D 1976 Lah. 132 referred by the first Appellate Court in its order has no application to the facts of ‑the present case. I accordingly accept this appeal, reverse the order of Ist appellate authority and restore. the order , Rent Controller but grant 4 months time to respondent to vacate the premises subject to the condition that the appellant shall continue to deposit month rent in Court in accordance with the direction of the Rent Controller. 1 will, however, make no order as to costs,

M. Y. H. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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