DEEDAR ALI Versus GUL MUHAMMAD
This appeal is directed against the order of III‑Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Hyderabad, dated 26‑3‑1983 whereby he allowed application under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and directed the appellant to hand over vacant possession of Flat No. G/2125/11 Allahdad Chand Jo Goth, Hyderabad to the respondent.
2. Case of the respondent is that he is landlord of the above premises and the appellant is his tenant at Rs.45 per month. The appellant has failed to pay the rent since September 1979 hence the prayer for ejectment.
3. The appellant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant as well as the rate of rent. He has admitted that respondent had not received rent since September 1979. He has however alleged that in the beginning he had personally tendered the rent of September, 1979 to the respondent but he refused to accept the same and wanted enhancement of the rent. He, therefore, tendered the rent by money orders which were refused by the respondent. Hence he started depositing the rent in Court.
The learned Rent Controller after taking into consideration the contentions of the parties and the evidence led by them came to the conclusion that the appellant had committed default in payment of rent and therefore ordered his ejectment. It is an admitted position that the respondent had not received any rent since September 1979. The appellant had led oral evidence before the Controller to the effect that he had personally tendered the rent to the Controller on several occasions but the respondent refused to accept the same. This oral evidence has been disbelieved by the learned Rent Controller. The reasons advanced by the learned Controller for disbelieving the oral evidence are cogent. There is no reason for me to take a contrary view.
The appellant had sent 3 money orders to the appellant. The first money order was sent on 6‑6‑1980. It was for the rent of September 1979 to February 1980. It did not contain the rent for the months of March, April and May 1980. The respondent was therefore justified in refusing to accept the same. The second money order was sent on 8‑7‑1980 and the same was of rent of Rs.210 from September 1979 to February 1980. The rent for the months of March to June, 1980 was not sent and therefore the respondent was justified in refusing this money order also. The third money order was for a sum of Rs.420 being the rent from September 1979 to August 1980 and was sent on 10th September, 1980. This money order was also refused. No doubt this consisted of the entire rent upto the date when the money order was sent. But the settled law is that once the default had occurred the landlord was at liberty to refuse to accept the rent and refuse to waive the default thus committed. The conduct of the tenant is not above reproach. He did not pay rent for 8 months and then he sent the rent of 6 months only by money order which was refused. Again he sent the same rent of 6 months by another money order although the rent of 10 months became due by then and had thus lost sympathy of the landlord. It was on the third occasion that he had sent the entire rent by money order. But it appears that the patience of the landlord was exhausted and he filed the ejectment application. The deposit of rent before the Controller has been made by the appellant after the filing of the application under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 an therefore, cannot be taken into consideration.
6. Mr. Syed Jehangir Hussain Shah has cited the following rulings in support of his case. 1983 C L C 346, 1969 Law Notes (Kar. ) 34, P L D 1982 Kar. 188 and 1985 S C M R 1729.
7. I have gone through all these rulings. None of these rulings would apply to the facts of the present case.
8. As against this Mr. Jamil Ahmed Khan has placed reliance on the following rulings 1973 S C M R 309; 1981 S C M R 18; P L D 1986 Kar. 344 and P L D 1982 S C 465.
9. It is quite clear that the appellant had wilfully defaulted in payment of rent for a long period and the respondent, was therefore, justified in refusing to accept his money orders. The appellant was a clear defaulter in the eyes of law. The finding of the learned Rent Controller is, therefore, justified and does not call for any interference. Hence, I dismiss the appeal by my short order, dated 16‑2‑1988.
M . Y . H . / D‑21/ K Appeal dismissed.