Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal No.27 of 1980, decided on 22nd April, 1984.

---Ss.13 & 15--Ejectmeht petition--Contention that default was not wilful because representative of landlord had not come to collect rent and that tenant had paid Rs.1,514.27 towards taxes--Tenant failing to produce original documents or copies in support of contention--After adjustment of payment of taxes rent still remaining due, for which tenant having no explanation--Tenant a wilful defaulter--Tribunals below discussing all aspects of case and giving concurrent findings against tenant- -Ejectment order maintained--Tenant in possession of house since last 25 years allowed six months" time to hand over vacant possession to landlord.

K.B. Bhutto for Appellant.

F.M. Piracha for, Respondent.,

Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1984.

This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 9-1-1978 passed by the li Rent Controller, Karachi whereby he allowed the rent application of respondent (landlord) and ordered the ejectment of the appellant.

The facts of this case are that Raja Saeed Akhtar Khan (now respondent) is landlord of House No.2157, Pir Elahi Bux Colony, Karachi whereas the appellant is tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.100 p.m.

3. Respondent on 18-3-1971 filed application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, in which he stated that appellant has failed to pay the rent from 1st November, 1963 to 28th February, 1971 for 88 months amounting to Rs.8,800.

4. Appellant filed Written Statement in which he stated that he is a tenant since 1957. He has paid rent till August, 1968 to the respondent through his appointed Rent Collector. Thereafter neither the attorney nor the appointed Rent Collector turned up to collect the rent. His contention is that he has paid Rs.1,514.27 towards the taxes of Excise and Taxation Department and Karachi Municipal Corporation and that the representative of the landlord has also obtained Rs.1,000 as fixed deposit from the -appellant. The Rent Controller on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether the appellant has committed default in payment of rent

(2) What amount is- due

5. Attorney of respondent Khan Muhammad Pirzada was examined and on the other side appellant Dr.S.Farooqi examined himself.

6. Rent Controller in his order dated 9-1-1978, held that appellant is wilful defaulter and has not paid the rent for more than 3 years at the time of filing of the rent application therefore he directed the appellant to vacate the premises and handover the vacant possession within thirty days to the respondent.

7. The appellant filed appeal which was also dismissed by the VIth Additional District Judge, Karachi vide order dated 18-12-1979.

8. I have heard Mr. K . B. Bhutto, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.F.M. Piracha, advocate for the respondent.

Mr. K . B. Bhutto has contended that default is not wilful because the representative of the landlord had not come to collect the rent. He has also submitted that the appellant had paid Rs.1,514.27 towards the taxes.

Mr.F.M. Piracha has contended that there is a wilful default and it is the duty of every tenant to tender rent which he has failed to do so.

9. The appellant has failed to produce original documents or copies in support of his contentions. In the written statement he has also admitted that he has failed to pay rent for 13 months and he only wants an adjustment to the extent of Rs.1,514.27 taxes paid by him plus Rs.1,000 paid to the attorney of the respondent as fixed deposit. Even otherwise if this aspect is considered for the sake of his agreement even there is no explanation of Rs.500 which was yet to be paid to the respondent. It has not been proved that when he paid Municipal Tax and other taxes as stated by him therefore he cannot claim adjustment.

10. Appellant is a wilful defaulter and there are concurrent findings of two Tribunals wherein all aspects of the case have been discussed. There is no illegality or misreading of any evidence. Therefore I, maintain both the orders and order that appellant should handover the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent.

11. Mr.K.B. Bhutto has submitted that appellant is in possession of this house since last 25 years, therefore some time may be granted to vacate the house. This point needs consideration therefore I allow appellant six months time to handover the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent and if he fails he be evicted without any execution proceedings.

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.