ALLAUDDIN Versus GHAZANFAR ALI

1. The appellant Allauddin has impugned the judgment dated 18‑9‑1991 in this appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 whereby the learned Rent Controller Karachi Central had dismissed his Rent Application No.74/88 (Old Rent Case No3987/79).

2. Briefly stated the appellant had filed the said Rent Case on the grounds of personal need, default in payment of rent and subletting which was dismissed on all the said grounds. Against this order, the appellant had filed Rent Appeal No.1004/84 in this Court which was decided on 16th December, 1987 by a learned Single Judge remanding the case to determine question of default in payment of rent by the appellant after giving both parties full opportunity to lead evidence. Accordingly the learned Rent Controller proceeded with the case and on 18‑3‑1991 the said rent application was dismissed, against which order the appellant has again come in appeal.

3. Briefly stated the case of the appellant was that the respondent had failed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.110 per month from December, 1979 to March 1978. The respondent denied the allegations and deposed that he had committed no default whatsoever as the appellant had refused to accept rent offered to him by the respondent, therefore, he had to send the money orders for the months of December, 1977, January, February and March, 1978, whereafter he had made deposit of rent of these months in Court on 15‑4‑1978, which he has continued to deposit uptil now, in Misc. Rent Case No.1656/78 filed by him. In support, the respondent produced money order coupens being Exhs.B‑5, B‑7, B‑3 and B‑1, which were also produced by the Assistant Post Master. Similarly the respondent had produced documentary evidence for deposit of rent in Misc. Rent Case No.1656/78. In this regard Nazir of the Court Mr. Wazirul Hwsan of District South was summoned and he produced his report Exh.O.W. and other documents establishing deposit of rent up to date as alleged by the respondent.

4. It is an admitted position that the money orders were addressed by the respondent to the appellant and the rent was remitted by him within time. Similarly it stands established that the respondent had deposited the rent for the said four months in the Court in Misc. Rent Case No.1656/78 whereafter he has continued to deposit the rent of the premises regularly in the Court. The evidence of the Nazir as well as of Assistant Post Master fully corroborates the defence put up by the respondent and therefore I am of the view that the appellant has failed to establish that the respondent had committed default for the said period.

5. These are the reasons for dismissing the appeal vide my short order dated 26‑9‑1993.

6. H.B.T./A‑1413/K Appeal dismissed.