Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 771 of 1983, decided on 4th August, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 15 (2)(ii)‑‑Ejectment of tenant on ground of default in payment of rent‑‑Where tenant had remitted rent due, long after filing of eviction application against tenant, mere fact of filing such application before expiry of statutory period to tender rent of premises, held, would not defeat ejectment application‑‑Cause of action having been matured during pendency of case, result would not have been different if landlord had withdrawn and represented same application‑‑Rent Controller, rightly granted ejectment of tenant even if eviction application was premature on date of its institution.

Raja Muhammad v. Haji Muhammad Zareen 1980 S C M R 339; Syed Ashraf Ali v. Ali Muhammad Khan 1986 C L C 735 and Syed Shin Gul v. Haji Abdul Majid P L D 1968 Quetta 45 ref.

Abdul Hafeez Siddiqui for Appellant.

Sadiq for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 4th August, 1986.

This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by the appellant/ tenant against the order of Rent Controller, dated 1‑9‑1983 directing eviction of the appellant from the premises on the ground of non‑payment of rent.

The default was alleged against the appellant in the Rent Application from January 1981 while the application for eviction was instituted on 26‑3‑1981. In the Written Statement the appellant denied the allegation regarding non‑payment of rent and took the plea that the respondent's agent intentionally and deliberately avoided to receive the rent for the month of January 1981 and, therefore, she tendered the rent by money and upon refusal by the respondent to receive the rent she started depositing the same in the Court. It is an admitted position in the case that the rent was tendered by money order on 15‑5‑1981 by the appellant through money order. In his evidence before the Court appellant stated that she used to pay six months rent in advance for the disputed month, the landlord and his agent did not collect the rent, therefore, she remitted the rent by money order. The only contention raised by Mr. Abdul Hafeez Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant, is that as there was no written agreement of tenancy between the parties, the rent for the month of January 1981, could be paid by 2nd of April, 1981 and as such the rent application which was presented on 28‑3‑1981 was premature. It is accordingly contended that no order of ejectment could be passed by the Rent Controller on such incompetent application. It is true that the ejectment application was filed by the respondent within sixty days of the rent for the month of January and February 1981 becoming due but in the circumstances of the present case this fact alone could not defeat the application as the appellant admittedly remitted rent through money order on 15‑5‑1981 for these months which amounted to clear default. As the cause of action matured during pendency of the case and the result would not have been different if the application was withdrawn by the respondent and represented the Rent Controller rightly granted ejectment of appellant. See Raja Muhammad v. Haji Muhammad Zareen 1980 S C M R 339 and Syed Ashraf Ali v. Ali Muhammad Khan 1986 CLC 735. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon on unreported case of Khawaja Assemuddin v. Iftikhar Bano IInd Appeal No. 80 of 1981 and Syed Shin Gul v. Haji Abdul Majid P L D 1968 Quetta 45 to support his contention that the application for ejectment instituted by the respondent on 28‑3‑1981 was premature. The aforesaid cases cited by the learned counsel are distinguishable on fact and are of no assistance to the learned counsel in ,the circumstances of the present case. No case for interference is made out. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. The appellant is allowed six months time to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed premises to the respondent from today on the condition that during this period she will continue to deposit monthly rent in Court regularly and directed by the Controller.

S . Q . 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.