Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.412 of 1987, decided on 10th May, 1987.-

---Ss. 15(2)(ii), 18 & 21(1)--Non-tendering of rent to new owner by tenant despite notice--Effect--Tenant in spite of receiving legal notice under S.18 from landlord who had validly purchased premises in dispute from original owner, failed to comply with such notice and did not tender rent within 30 days from date of receipt of notice- Tenant, who committed default in payment of rent, held, was rightly ordered to be ejected from premises by Rent Controller on ground of default--No illegality and misappreciation of evidence having been pointed out by tenant, decision of Rent Controller being quite in accordance with law, could not be interfered with in appeal.

Abdul Alim K. Talib for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 10th May, 1987.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 3-3-1987 passed by the IVth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi West, whereby he allowed the eviction application filed by the respondent and directed the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute within 60 days from the date of the order.

The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent acquired the property bearing No.12/1(A-d-5 S-80) Wilayatabad. Manghopir Road, Karachi, from Mst. Khairunnisa wife of Israr Ahmed Abbasi and the appellant is the tenant in respect of shop Nos.1 and 2 at the monthly rental of Rs.75. The respondent filed eviction application No.1147 of 1985 (New No.2352 of 1985) against the appellant on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal requirement. The appellant resisted the eviction application. The respondent filed his own affidavit-in-evidence in support of the eviction application besides affidavit-in-evidence of Haji Mohammadullah and Sarfraz Ahmed. The appellant filed his own affidavit-in-evidence in rebuttal, besides the affidavit-in-evidence Hoshiar Ali and Salamat Jan Khan. They were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

The Controller on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties decided issue No.1 in the negative, issue No.2 in the affirmative and issue No.3 in the negative and allowed the eviction application only on the ground of default in payment of rent.

The appellant being aggrieved against the order dated 30-3-1987 of IVth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi West, has preferred this First Rent Appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.

I nave heard the learned counsel for the appellant,- perused the impugned order. I have also gone through the R & P of the case.

It is an admitted position that the respondent acquired the premises in dispute from Mst. Khairunnisa wife of Israr Ahmed Abbasi. It is also an admitted, position that after acquiring the property, the respondent served a legal notice dated 18-9-1984 as required by section 18 of the Sindi Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The appellant sent a reply stating therein that he had agreed to purchase the premises in dispute from Mst. Khairunnisa. The appellant filed written statement wherein he took the same plea that he purchased the property in dispute from Mst. Khairunnisa and further stated therein that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is an admitted position that the appellant received a notice dated 18-9-1984 from the resppRdent but did not tender rent within 30 days from the date d' the receipt of notice. I have perused the agreement dated 14-5-1984 executed between Mst. Khairunnisa wife of Israr Ahmed and the appellant. It is no doubt that Mst. Khairunnisa agreed to sell the premises in dispute to the appellant for total sale consideration of Rs.9,000. It is also a fact that Mst. Khairunnisa received Rs.2,000 as part payment. The said Mst. Khairunnisa instead of finalizing the transaction with the appellant sold the premises -in dispute to the respondent. The case of the appellant is that after the execution of the agreement dated 14-5-1984 the relationship of landlord and tenant between Mst. Khairunnisa and the appellant, ceased to exist. This contention is devoid of force. I have perused the agreement. There is no such condition/term in the agreement through which it can be shown that the relationship between the parties as that. of landlady and tenant ceased to exist from the date of execution of the agreement. The respondent purchased the property in dispute) from Mst. Khairunnisa and thereafter he served a notice as required by provisions of section 18 of the Ordinance. It is an admitted position that the appellant did not comply with the notice. It is also an admitted position that the appellant did not tender the rent within 30 days as required by the provisions of section 18 of the Ordinance. In view of this legal position, it seems that the learned Controller A has decided the issue in accordance with law. No illegality and mis appreciation of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant.

For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any force in this appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, I -allow four months' time to the appellant to vacate the premises provided he continues to deposit rent as ordered by the learned Controller.

H.B.T./S-125/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.