ZAHEER AHMAD Versus Mst. AMINA BEGUM
This is an. appeal against the order dated 10‑11‑1986 passed by the learned Vth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (West Karachi, in Rent Case No. 2357 of 1985, whereby the application of the respondent was allowed and the appellant was directed to vacate the shop premises in question within sixty days‑
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, stated are that the appellant has been a tenant of one Mst. Shamim Fatima, who w ,the landlady, in respect of shop situated in Liaquatabad, Karachi on a monthly rent of Rs.50. The said property was purchased by the respondent from her by a registered sale‑decd dated 3‑11‑1980. A notice dated 3‑3‑1985, as required under Section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) was given by the respondent to the appellant to which a reply dated 16‑3‑1985 was sent by the appellant to the respondent's counsel. Having received no rent from the appellant, the respondent filed on 8‑7‑1985 an application for ejectment bearing No. B.C. 2357/85, alleging that the appellant had committed default in payment of rent since 3‑11‑1980 at the rate of Rs.80 per month. A written statement was filed in which it was alleged that the rate of rent was Rs.50 and not Rs.80 per month. It was further alleged by the appellant in his written statement that the appellant bad been depositing rent in Rent Case No. 2214/75 instituted against him by the above‑said Mst. Shamim Fatima. On 7‑10‑1986, learned counsel for the parties stated before the lower Court that they do not want to lead any evidence in support of their contentions and the matter be decided after hearing arguments of both sides. Accordingly the learned Rent Controller heard the arguments and allowed the application by his order appealed against.
3. Mr. Asghar Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant cannot be treated as wilful defaulter as he has been regularly depositing rent in the Rent Case No.2214/75 instituted by the previous owner, Mst. Shamim Fatima. It was further submitted by him that no rent was mentioned in the notice under Section 18 of the Ordinance served by the respondent on the appellant. I enquired of him as to the result of the original rent case instituted by the previous landlady against the appellant. He was not in a position to give any answer to it. I, therefore, adjourned the matter for today.
4. It is now submitted by Mr. Asghar Hussain that the ejectment application in Rent Case No.2214/75 was dismissed for want of prosecution by, the said landlady. In fact Mr. Mohammad Usman, learned counsel for the! respondent produced a photostat copy of the certified copy of the order dated! 27‑11‑1978, which is not disputed by the, learned counsel for the appellant. In view! of the dismissal of the Rent Case No.2214/75 the proceedings in rent case, for; not filing an appeal against the order, against the appellant, came to an end finally, and thus there was no occasion for the appellant to ‑go on depositing rent in the said case, knowing it fully well that there was no pending proceedings against him, even after the institution of the case by the Respondent. Therefore the excuse taken by him that he was depositing rent in ;he Rent Case No.2214/75 even after the dismissal is not a good defence. He ought to have tendered the rent, on receipt of notice from the respondent. If he had some doubt in the mind about new ownership, he could have written letter to the previous landlady, which he did not do. Reliance is placed on the cases of Qalab‑e‑Hussain Vs Muhammad Nadim and others (1986 S C M R 1690), Syed Hamid Hussain V. Mst. Humaira Ghias (1986 C L C 1873), Khalilur Rehman V. The Controller of Post Offices General Post Offices, Karachi and 2 others (1987 C L C 333) and Haji Abdul Hameed V. Ch. Muhammad Islam (1983 C L C 970). No other plea was taken before me.
I, therefore, find no infirmity in the order impugned before me and the appeal is rejected.
M.Y.H/Z‑55/K Appeal rejected.