Khawaja MUHAMMAD ABBASI Versus SALAHUDDIN KHAN
1. This First Rent Appeal arises out of order dated 30th April, 1984 passed by the learned IXth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, by which he has ordered ejectment of appellant on the ground of default.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent filed an application for ejectment on 30‑11‑1.976 against the appellant inter alia alleging therein that appellant/opponent was tenant of the respondent in respect of a shop situated in Sher Shah Colony, Karachi at monthly rent of Rs.60. It was further alleged that the tenant had failed t, pay rent from 1‑3‑1976 to 30‑11‑1976, and therefore, was a defaulter.
3. The appellant was served with notice, and he filed his written statement, in which he contended that he was not supplied with complete address by the landlord. That he requested the landlord in the month of January, 1976 to get damaged wall repaired but he kept him on false hopes. That after February, 1.976, the landlord did not turn rip to collect the rent from him. That whenever he offered rent to the respondent, he refused to accept the same. It was further contended that the landlord had deliberately avoided to accept rent, and since he had no address of the landlord, the same could not be sent to him by money order.
4. In support of his contention the respondent/applicant examined himself and has produced receipt Ex‑0/1, envelope Ex.0/2. On the other hand appellant examined himself, and has produced a rent receipt. He has also examined Mehboob and Nawaz Baig.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the R & P of the case.
6. It was contended by Mr.Imtiaz Hussain learned counsel for the appellant that there was no wilful default on the part of the appellant/tenant, and the learned Rent Controller had erred in ordering ejectment.
7. Mr.Jawed Raza learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that it was the duty of the tenant to have tendered rent, and on refusal, to have deposited the same in Court if the applicant/respondent had avoided to accept the same. That it was proved that the appellant had made a wilful default in paying the rent and, therefore, the order of Rent Controller was justified in the circumstances of the case.
8. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. It has been admitted by the appellant that the rent from 1st March to 30th November, 1976 was due against him, but his explanation was that the applicant/landlord had avoided to accept the rent, and that he had no complete address of the landlord, and therefore, the same could not be sent to him through money order. The witnesses examined by the appellant have also deposed that the appellant had offered tent to the respondent but he had refused to supply complete address to the appellant.
9. The evidence of the respondent/landlord shows that the appellant had failed to pay rent in spite of repeated demands. The appellant is a businessman and he was expected to know that in case of refusal to accept rent by the landlord, it was his duty to have sent the same through money order, and if it was refused, then the same should have been deposited in Court. Even if it is accepted for the salve of arguments that the appellant was not supplied the complete address b% the respondent /landlord, then too he could deposit the same in Court. But in the present case neither the rent was sent by money order nor it was deposited in Court, and therefore, the evidence of the witnesses examined by the appellant P, of no avail to him.
10. In view of the above discussion it is clear that the appellant was clearly a defaulter inasmuch as he had neither tendered the rent nor deposited the same in Court after the landlord had refused to accept. Therefore, the leaned Rent Controller was justified in ordering ejectment of the appellant. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. However, the appellant is allowed six months time to vacate the shop in question and hand over vacant possession to the respondent subject to the conditions that he. continues to deposit rent before the Rent Controller regularly, every month, and in case of default the Rent Controller will execute this order immediately. In case the appellant fails to hand over vacant possession to the respondent after the expiry of period of six months, the learned Rent Controller shall issue ejectment warrants without issuing notice.
12. I had decided the above appeal by a short order on 21‑10‑1987, and these are the reasons for the same.
13. M.Y.H./M‑504/K Appeal dismissed