MUHAMMAD YAMEEN Versus YOUSUF LAKHANI

1. This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by the appellant /landlord against the order of the learned Rent Controller, dated 27‑7‑1982 whereby he rejected the application of the appellant for eviction of the respondent /opponent on the ground of default and personal requirement. In his application, the appellant alleged default in payment of rent against the respondent from February, 1980 till the filing of the ejectment case which was instituted on 31st of August, 1980. It was further alleged in the application that besides rent of Rs.150 per month the respondent was also liable to pay Rs.30 per month as water charges which he had defaulted since February, 1978 to July, 1980. On ground of personal and bona fide requirement he urged that he needed premises for his married daughter. The application was resisted by the tenant/ respondent and after recording evidence of the parties the Rent Controller held that neither default is proved nor the appellant succeeded in establishing the personal and bona fide needs of his daughter. Mr. Abdul Majid Khan, learned counsel for the appellant contends that although there may not be default in payment of monthly rent at the rate of Rs.150 per month in respect of the premises but there was certainly default in payment of water charges at the rate of Rs.30 per month. The Rent Controller in this connection referred to the written agreement of tenancy between the parties and came to the conclusion that water charges are not payable under that agreement. Mr. Majid Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to paragraph 3 of the agreement which provides that the tenant has accepted the terms and conditions printed on the back of the rent receipt. The terms and conditions on the back of the rent receipt have been produced before the Rent Controller and item No. 3 provides that the tenant shall pay according to the rate of water charges fixed by the authorities concerned. It was not disputed before the Rent Controller that the terms and conditions printed .on the receipt are not those which were produced on record but the Rent Controller disregarded these terms on the ground that in view of the written agreement of tenancy item No. 3 printed on the back of the receipt could not be taken into consideration by him. This conclusion of Rent Controller is based on misreading of the document. Terms and conditions printed on the back of receipt were made part of the agreement by virtue of paragraph 3 of the rent note. It is, therefore, clear that the terms and conditions printed on the back of the receipt also form integral part of the tenancy agreement which was reduced into writing between the parties. However, according to the item No. 3 relied by the learned counsel for the appellant the water charges could be recovered from the tenant only when it is fixed by the authorities concerned. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that no evidence was led before the Controller to show the rate of water charges in respect of the flat in dispute was fixed by the Municipal Corporation. In these circumstances although the finding of the Rent Controller that the respondent was not liable to pay water charges was not correct but the finding that he has not committed and default is not open to any exception as admittedly the landlord did not lead any evidence before the Rent Controller to establish the water rate has been fixed by the Municipal Corporation in respect of the flat in dispute. The finding of the Rent Controller, therefore, in so far as it relates to default needs no interference except to the extent that he wrongly held that the tenant was not liable to pay anything by way of water charges to the landlord /appellant. I, therefore, while maintaining the finding of the Rent Controller on the issue of default modify the same to the extent mentioned above.

2. The second ground of ejectment pleaded in the application related to the personal and bona fide requirement of the married daughter of the applicant. In his affidavit of evidence the appellant with regard to the personal and bona fide requirement of his daughter stated as follows: ‑‑

3. "3. That the applicant required the premises for his daughter."

4. No details, particulars, or the ground for seeking accommodation for his daughter has been disclosed by the appellant. The appellant also did not examine his daughter in support of his plea. In cross-examination the appellant was suggested by the respondent that his daughter is living in a separate flat in the same building. Although this suggestion was denied but it has nowhere come in evidence as to where the appellant's daughter is residing. In his evidence the respondent stated that the daughter of the appellant is residing separately in the adjacent building which is also owned by the appellant. In these circumstances the Rent Controller was justified in holding that the appellant had failed to establish personal and bona fide requirement of his daughter. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal fails but as the respondent has not appeared to defend the appeal, there will be no order as to costs.

5. H . B . T . Appeal dismissed.