Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 679 of 1982, decided on 23rd April, 1984.

---Ss.15 & 21--Default--Rent note bearing signatures of appellant (tenant) and respondent (landlord)--After having executed rent agreement in favour of respondent, held, it did not lie in mouth of appellant, that he was tenant of someone A, his uncle--Tenant producing coupon, whereby he remitted rent to his uncle--Conduct of tenant in persistently denying title of respondent as landlord and insisting on sending rent to his own uncle, held, not only contumacious but sufficient to disentitle him to continue as tenant in disputed shop.

---Ss.15 & 21--Subletting--Appellant No. 2, real brother of appellant No. 1 (tenant) working with him in disputed shop--Possibility existing that he might be sitting at shop in order to assist his brother appellant No. 1--Plea of subletting, held, not proved.

---Ss.15 & 21--Bona fide personal need--Landlord's family consisting of 15 to 20 members and his one son working with a cloth merchant for last 10 years as his employee--Personal requirement of landlord, held, proved.

Fazal Bhoy for Appellants.

Habibur Rehman for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 23rd April, 1984.

The appellants have filed this appeal from the judgment of IX Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi dated 18th May, 1982 in rent case No. 2421 of 1978, whereby he had allowed the ejectment application of the respondent and directed the appellants to vacate the premises in question within 119 days.

2. The case of the respondent was that the appellants are defaulters in paying rent, that the appellant No. 1 has sublet the premises to appellant No. 2, that the appellants have damaged the property and that the respondent requires the premises for his personal use.

3. In their written statement the appellants denied that they had committed default or that the appellant No. 1 had sublet the premises to appellant No. 2. Appellant No. 1 has further stated in his written statement that previously these shops were rented out to his uncle Abdul Nabi and that he had taken the same from Abdul Nabi. He further stated that appellant No. 2 is his real brother and used to help him in the shop and was not a sub-tenant of his in the shop. He admits that he has executed a rent-deed in favour of the respondent which has been produced in evidence as Exh.7/A, but he has been paying rent to Abdul Nabi.

4. The rent deed is dated 1/6/1972 and bears signature of appellant No. 1. By this rent-deed he had agreed to be tenant of the respondent Bashiruddin. After having executed this rent-agreement, it does not lie in the mouth of appellant, No. 1 to say that his own uncle Abdul Nabi was the landlord of the premises. He is a businessman, therefore, he cannot be treated as a layman or an illiterate person. For about five years his appellant has been paying rent to his own uncle Abdul Nabi instead of Bashiruddin, who was admittedly his landlord, according to the rent-deed (Exh.7/A). The dishonesty of appellant No. 1 will be apparent even from the money order coupon which he has produced in support of his plea that he had been remitting rent by money order. This money order coupon is Exh.8-C, whereby he had remitted rent to his own uncle Syed Abdul Nabi. This conduct of the appellant in persistently denying the title of the respondent as landlord and insisting on sending rent to his own uncle for this shop is not only contumacious but is sufficient to disentitle him to continue as tenant in the shop in question.

5. So far as the subletting is concerned, it is proved that the shop was rented out to appellant No. 1 only. It is admitted that appellant No. 2 is also working on this shop. It is also admitted that both the appellants are real brothers. Hence it is possible that appellant No.2 might be sitting at the shop in order to assist his brother appellant No.1. I, therefore, hold that there is no sufficient evidence in support of the plea of subletting.

6.The plea of bona fide requirement of the respondent also stands proved by the affidavit of the large family consisting of about 15 to 20 members and that one of his sons namely, Riazuddin has been working with a cloth merchant as his employee. From the affidavit of Riazuddin it appears that he has got 10 years experience of cloth business and that he wants to start his own business in this shop. From this evidence I am satisfied that the personal requirement of the respondent for the premises in question is also proved.

For the above reasons this appeal has no substance and is dismissed as such. The appellants are, however, granted four months time to vacate the premises.

M. A. K. 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.