MANAGING COMMITTEE JAMIA MASJID-e-FIRDOUS (TRUST) Versus Syed ABDUL HADI

1. It is an appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance,, 1979, passed by the learned XIVth Rent Controller, Karachi by his order dated 14‑5‑1984 in‑Rent Case No.4579 of 1982.

2. The facts arising out of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant in respect of a house. On 2‑11‑1982 an ejectment application under Section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) was filed by the appellant for ejectment on the grounds of (i) default in payment of rent and (ii) carrying out additions and alterations unauthorisedly, which impaired material value and Y utility of the property in question. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:‑

(i) Whether opponent is wilful defaulter in payment of monthly rent from July, 1982?

(ii) Whether opponent has made alterations and. additions and has impaired the material value or utility of the rented premises? '

(iii) What should the order be?

3. The appellant examined its treasurer (Abdul Ghaffar Khan) and its General Secretary, Raza Khan, whereas the respondent examined himself and two witnesses. The learned Rent Controller after recording evidence and hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the application on both the issues by his order, dated 14th May, 1984, against which the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent was in default in payment of rent for the months of July, August and September, 1982. It is further submitted by him that the rent for the said three months was remitted by the respondent by money order, dated 21st October, 1982. It was inter alia pleaded by the respondent that the appellant used to collect rent from him in lump sum. This plea finds support from five receipts as detailed below:‑

2. Receipt No.

3. Dated

4. Rent for the month of

5. 910

6. 968

7. 663

8. 13

9. 94

10. 26‑10‑1979

11. 7‑12‑1980

12. 6‑7‑1981

13. 8‑1‑1982

14. 8‑7‑1982

15. August and September, 1979

16. April to October, 1980

17. April to June, 1981

18. November and December, 1981

19. April to June, 1982.

20. It has been submitted by PW‑1 who is a Treasurer of the Masjid Committee that he had refused to receive the rent because it was paid late, but in view of the practice as shown above, the appellant does not seem to be justified in refusing the rent tendered to his Treasurer. The respondent appears to have remitted the rent by money order, which was refused. It appears that immediately after refusal by PW‑1, the respondent started depositing rent in Miscellaneous Rent Case No.4381 of 1982. Moreover, the rent for July, 1982 in the absence o: subsisting written tenancy agreement was legally due on 1‑10‑1982 and for August on 1‑11‑1982 and for September on 1‑12‑1982 i.e. within 60 days after the rent became due. In the circumstances, the finding of the learned Controller does not call for interference in this appeal as the respondent had tendered the rent for the months of August and September, 1982, before it was due and payable under Section 10(2) of the Ordinance. It was, therefore, rightly held by the learned Rent Controller that the respondent was not negligent or a wilful defaulter.

5. As regards additions and alterations the learned Rent Controller has given finding that the appellant has failed, firstly, to furnish details of such alterations and additions made by the respondent and secondly, has 'failed to produce evidence to prove that the value and utility of the premises has been impaired due to the additions and alterations. On the other hand, there is evidence produced by the respondent that the additions and alterations made have increased the value and utility of the premises in question. The said finding is, therefore, maintained.

6. For the reasons discussed above the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances that the respondent has not appeared, there will be no order as to costs.

21. M.Y.H./M‑480/K Appeal dismissed.