ALTAF Versus Mst. GULSHAN BEGUM
1. These three First Rent Appeals Nos. 423 of 1985, 424 of 1985, 425 of 1985 have been filed against the three orders dated 19‑5‑1985, of IXth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby he allowed the three Rent applications on the ground of default in payment of rent.
2. Facts are that Mst. Gulshan Begum is landlady while appellants Altaf, Mst. Gulzar Begum and Nisar are the tenants. Three Rent cases bearing No. 727 of 1978, 728 of 1978 and 729 of 1978, were filed by the landlady on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide requirement. The written statements were filed in each case and evidence was adduced by both the parties. In three Rent cases there was common evidence of the witnesses from both the parties but recorded separately. Respondent landlady examined her attorney Medhi Hassan Baig and Muhammad Shaft while appellants in each case examined themselves and in support also examined Tahir Ali in all the causes.
3. At the outset Mr. Abdul Sattar Khatri appearing for the appellant pointed out that the Rent Controller has not applied his mind properly and in judgment, he has recorded the same facts as given by the attorney of the respondent Rent Case No. 727 of 1978. This has not been denied by Mr. Abid Hussain who is appearing for the respondent but states that this is technical mistake on the part of the Rent Controller. It is argued that Rent Controller in the reasoning has given the correct facts about the default.
4. I have gone through the evidence with the assistance of both the learned counsel. In Rent Case No. 727 of 1978, default is claimed for two and half years while in Rent Case No. 728 of 1978 and in Rent Case No. 729 of 1978 for six months and twelve months respectively. It is regretted to note that in judgment the facts of the case of applicant Latif have been shown in other two Rent cases and it has specifically mentioned that applicant examined her attorney Haji Mehdi Hassan as Exh.4/1. He in examination‑in‑chief and cross‑examination of his affidavit has alleged that 'the opponent is habitual defaulter and has committed wilful default in payment of rent for two and half' years'. The same are the words in the judgment of Mst. Gulzar Begum and Nisar. On the other hand, the affidavits of applicants are contrary to this fact where witness of the landlady has specifically given the period of default. The other circumstance which came to nay knowledge is that in all the three judgments the names of the parties have been specifically written in hand while the entire judgment is typed. The Rent Controller in his order has reproduced the same reasoning in three cases which is as under:‑‑
5. "In the instant case the opponent has stated that he has paid, rent upto September, 1977, in cash but he has not product"' tine rent receipt as he also has asserted that he sent the rent through postal money order but he has admitted that the money order was returned as refused and in that case of refusal the opponent was legally bound to deposit tire rent into the Court within 60 days as contemplated under subsection (3) of section 10 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, but he has failed to deposit the same.
6. I, therefore, hold that the opponent is a wilful defaulter for the alleged default. This issue is answered accordingly.
7. In this respect I rely on 1984 C L C 1596(a) in First Rent Appeal of Abdul Majeed v. Ibrahim. It has been held that it is the duty of the tenant to pay the rent regularly if it is not demanded by landlord."
8. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the Rent Controller has not applied his mind independently in each case and orders from the very face of it are contrary to the provision of law and justice. Since the same points are involved in‑all the three appeals, I, therefore, dispose of all the three rent cases by this single judgment. The orders of the Rent Controller are set aside and cases are remanded back with the direction to the District and Sessions Judge to make over the cases to the Rent Controller having jurisdiction who should apply his mind independently and pass an appropriate order and decide the case according to law. The cases are very old, therefore, to be disposed of within six months.
9. M.Y.H./A‑332/K ????????????????????????????????
10. Case remanded.