Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 719 of 1984, decided on 17th May, 1987.

---Ss.14, 15 & 20--Ejectment on ground of default in payment of rent--Documents on record indicating that tenant had remitted the rent within grace period by money orders in the name of landlady's husband--Default, held, was a technical default as admittedly tenant had parted with the rent.

Muhammad Sadiq for Appellant.

Baqar Hussain for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 17th May, 1987.

This appeal is directed against an order, dated 24th May, 1984 passed by the Xth Senior Civil Judge First Class and Rent Controller at Karachi, in Rent Case No. 1502 of 1976 allowing the respondent's application for ejectment on the ground of default. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent had filed the aforesaid rent case on the ground of default for the period commencing from 16th March, 1975 to March, 1976 when the above rent application was filed on 29-3-1976. The above application was resisted by the present appellant. The relationship was denied. The learned Rent Controller framed preliminary issue as to the relationship and by his order, dated 21-5-1979 decided the question of relationship in favour of the respondent. After that the case proceeded. The respondent examined herself, her son and one Feroze Shah Khan, a bank Officer, whereas the appellant examined himself. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties allowed the rent application The appellant, has, therefore, filed the present appeal.

3. In support of the above appeal Mr. Sadiq, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that factually there was no default, and if there was any default it was a technical, whereas Mr. Baqar Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellant had been in arrears inasmuch as has not been paying rent to her and has been sending money order in the name of the respondent's husband and has deposited the rent in Miscellaneous Application in the name of Ziaul Haque.

4. I have gone through the evidence on record It seems that the appellant had written a letter dated 17-8-1971 Exh. 15, in which he admitted the factum that the respondent, who is wife of Zahoorul Haque, was her landlady. He has also acknowledged the fact that he had paid the rent from October, 1970 to 31st June, 1971. There are some rent receipts on record signed by Izharul Haque Exhs. 17/1 to 17/10 for the years 1974 and 1975 in which the house number is given as 83/2-C and not 82/2-C. Then there are counterfoils of the two money orders, one is dated 11-6-1975 for the period from March, 1975 to May, 1975 Exh. 20 in favour of Zahoorul Haque and the other is dated 30-8-1975 for the period from March; 1975 to August, 1975 again in favour of Zahoorul Haque Exh. 19. The appellant also filed Miscellaneous Rent Application No. 3990/75 on 20th October, 1975 and deposited the rent therein in favour of Raza Ziaul Haque and not Zahoorul Haque. Mr. Sadiq learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to sub-lease executed by P.E.C.H.S., Ltd. Karachi Exh.2 and P.E.C.H.S's. letter, dated i1-12-1975 Exhs. 3, in which the number of the house 82/2-C has not been mentioned but 81 and 83 have been mentioned. From the above documents, it seems that there was confusion as to the number of the tenement, though Exh.15 contains number 82/2-C, whereas the rent receipts issued by the respondent's son contains number 83/2-C which are of subsequent dates. The sub-lease executed by the Society and the Society's letter referred to hereinabove do not contain the above number 82/2-C. If we take into consideration Exh.15 alone in that event there seems to be default on the part 'of the appellant. However, if we also take into consideration the other documents on record, which indicate that the appellant had remitted the rent within the grace period of 60 days by the money orders in the name of the husband of the respondent. There seems no plausible reason for remitting the rent in the name of the husband of the respondent but fact remains that he remitted the rent in favour of the husband of the respondent. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, his client had sent the same bona fidely. Be that as it may, I am inclined to take the view that there was a technical default as admittedly the appellant had parted with the rent. At the same time the respondent has been subjected to unnecessary harassment and, therefore, she has to be compensated. The appellant has agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 300 p.m. from 1st June, 1987. The appeal is allowed as there was technical default only after recording the appellants' above undertaking. The order of the learned Rent Controller is set aside. The learned Rent Controller is also directed to pay the rent deposited by the appellant in the aforesaid Miscellaneous Rent Application No. 3990/75 to the respondent. The appellant will pay the rent to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 300 p.m. from 1st June, 1987. The appeal is disposed of with the above terms with no order as to costs.

S.Q./M-226/K

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.