Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.228 of 1982, decided on 23rd December, 1984.

--Ss. 15 & 21--Ejectment--Ex parte decree of ejectment--Tenant getting nine adjournments on his request for cross-examination of landlord but not availing same--Rent Controller passing order whereby debarring tenant from cross-examining landlord--Tenant given various opportunities for leading evidence but not availing same and remained absent--In spite of that plea taken by tenant in written statement considered and ex parte ejectment order passed--More indulgence, held, shown by Rent Controller to such negligent and careless party--Ejectment order upheld.

---Ss. 15 & 21--Default--Tenant denying relationship of tenancy--Rela tionship of tenancy established between landlord and tenant through documents in shape of rent agreement--Tenant, admittedly having not paid rent, held, clear case of default.

Shaikh Muhammad Usman for Appellant.

Zafar Alam Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 23rd December, 1984.

This is an appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 filed by the appellant/ tenant against the order, dated 20-1-1982 of the learned Rent Controller, Karachi allowing the Ejectment Case No.5516/78 and ordering ejectment of the appellant from the premises in question on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The ejectment application had been filed before the Rent Controller on "23-11-1978. Default had been alleged with effect from 1-10-1977. The rent of the premises is admittedly at Rs.100 per month. A written statement was filed by the appellant, in which he took the plea that although he was a tenant of the respondent but the Assistant Commis sioner had directed that the land in question belonged to the Government and as such no rent be paid by the appellant to the respondent. In the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the respondent filed his affidavit-in-evidence and the case was fixed for cross-examination of the respondent on 12-3-1980 but the respondent was not cross-examined on that day and the case was adjourned, apparently at the request of the appellant, on eight dates, and finally on 12-4-1981 an order was passed whereby the appellant was debarred from cross-examining the respondent. Thereafter the case was adjourned from 12-4-1981 to 20-1-1982 on nine other dates and various opportunities were granted to the appellant to lead evidence but these opportunities were not availed off and the appellant remained absent. In these circumstances an ex parte order of ejectment was passed on 20-1-1982 which is impugned in the present first rent appeal. I have heard Mr. Shaikh Muhammad Osman, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Zafar Alam Khan, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. From a perusal of the record, including the diary sheet of the pent Controller, it is apparent that more indulgence was shown by the Rent Controller to the appellant than is normally shown to a party who is so negligent and careless as the appellant was in the present case. Even otherwise, it is an admitted position that the appellant had no paid rent. It is a clear case of default. It is also admitted on record that through documents in the shape of rent agreements, relationship of landlord and tenant is established between the parties. Although it was not required of the Rent Controller to consider the plea taken by the appellant in the written statement, in spite of the facts and circumstances of this case including the careless and grossly negligent attitude of the appellant, the learned Rent Controller apparently, on compassionate ground, even considered the plea taken by the appellant in his written statement in the absence of the appellant and his counsel. No ground at all has been made out for interference.

3. First Rent Appeal No.228 of 1982 is dismissed with costs. However, the appellant is granted time till 29-2-1985 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.