Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 695 of 1981, decided on 13th January, 1985.

__Ss. 15 & 21--Ejectment on ground of default in payment of rent--Landlord used to collect rent periodically and abruptly stopped to collect same, tenant a poor ignorant man, does not know law or practice of Court and that tenant was under impression that it was duty of landlord o collect rent therefore was not a wilful defaulter--Held: Every one presumed to know law--Tenant, held, a wilful defaulter.

---Ss. 15 & 21--Ejectment on ground of default in payment pf rent--Tenant taking one .position that landlord suddenly stopped collecting rent and other that he refused to collect same--Held, tenant could not to adopt inconsistent positions--Ejectment order upheld in circumstances. S.A. Farooqui for Appellants. Inamul Hay for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th January, 1985.

This appeal is directed against the order of ejectment granted by VIII Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, dated 29-11-1981 on the ground of default. The non-payment of rent for the period of February, 1977 to January, 1978 is admitted by the appellant. Mr. Syed Ahmed Farooqui, Advocate for the appellant argued that the default of non-payment of rent was not wilful because the respondent used to collect rent sometimes in 5 months and sometimes in 6 months and he had abruptly stopped collecting the rent. He submitted that the appellant is a poor ignorant washerman and he does not know the law or practise of the Court and, therefore, he was under the impression that it was the respondent's duty to collect the rent and since he had not come to collect the same, therefore, he was not liable to pay the rent. This submission is not justified. Every one is presumed to know the law. Even otherwise I have seen the cross-examination made of the respondent where the respondent was asked the question that the appellant had offered to him rent several times, the respondent ofcourse denied the said suggestion. But the suggestion does show that the appellant was aware of his responsibility to pay the rent and he was also aware that the respondent is refusing to accept the rent and yet he did not either deposit the same in Court nor he tendered it by money order till March, 1978. The tender of rent by money order in March, 1978 was of no consequence because by that time the application for ejectment had been filed. I have also seen the cross-examination of the appellant where he had admitted that he knew the residence of the respondent and in these circumstances it was his duty to go and tender the rent to the respondent and if the respondent was avoiding to accept the rent then the same should have tendered within the time through money order or deposited in Court. 2. It is, therefore, obvious that the appellant has failed to prove the payment, tender by money order or deposit in Court, of rent, within due time. The non-payment of rent for more than one year could not be explained by the appellant and, therefore; discretion could not have been exercised by the Rent Controller in favour of the appellant. Moreover the appellant took up inconsistent positions. One was that the respondent had suddenly stopped collecting the rent and the other was that the respondent had refused to collect it. These are two inconsistent and irreconcilable positions and the appellant cannot be allowed to adopt inconsistent positions. The ejectment had been correctly ordered against the appellant and, therefore, this appeal is hereby dismissed. However I would grant 6 months time to the appellant to vacate the premises provided he deposits the rent regularly in Court. However, the respondent will be entitled to get the direct writ of attachment issued against the appellant after the period of 6 months from today or earner if the appellant does not deposit the rent within time. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. M.A.K. Appeal dismissed.