HASSAN Versus Mst. UMMATUL FATIMA
1. Mst. Ummatul Fatima has filed Rent Case No. 794/86 under section 16(1) (5) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against tenant Hasan on the ground of default and personal requirement. The Rent Controller by an order dated 30-8-1987 allowed the rent application on the ground of default in payment of rent but he decided issue No. 2 regarding personal requirement against the respondent landlady.
2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ikram Siddiqui for the appellant. It is contended by the learned counsel that in the rent application it is specifically not mentioned the period of default. It is argued that there was a practice of collecting accumulated rent and finally respondent refused to receive the rent and appellant started depositing the same in Misc. Rent Application.
3. Mr. Muniruddin AM for the respondent argued that in the written statement default has been admitted by the appellant and accumulated rent for five months was sent which was refused by the respondent. He has argued that issue No. 2 of personal bona fide requirement has wrongly been decided against the landlady. It is submitted that she is residing in a rented house and has got a son and has no other property.
4. The rent case has been filed on 1-7-1986. The appellant started depositing the rent in Misc. Rent Application in October, 1985. The case of respondent in the rent application is that appellant is wilful defaulter in payment of rent thus liable to be evicted on that bases also. He has not given the period of default in the rent application. Mr. AM has frankly stated that respondent should have been given period of default for which the rent case has been filed but it is argued that there is clear admission on the part of appellant that rent was not paid. The rent case was filed on 1-7-1986 in which in para. No. 3 it is stated that appellant is wilful defaulter in payment of rent. He has not given the specific period of default. He has also stated that son of appellant i.e. Anwarul Haq is in need of house as he has no other accommodation of his own. The appellant filed written statement in which it is stated that the respondent is in habit of collecting rent of several months although appellant was trying about the whereabouts and many times offers were made and also sent the rent through money order and finally it was deposited in Misc. Rent Application No. 1919/85.
5. Anwar-ul-Haq attorney of the respondent/landlord has been examined and stated that in view of written agreement monthly rent is payable in advance on the first of every month and he had committed wilful default in the eye of law for many months and continuous for the period of six months or so which is matter of record. He has stated that he is living in a rented house situated at A-335, Block `1' North Nazimabad Karachi-33. He examined Ahsanur Rehman who has stated that Syed Anwarul Haque is his tenant since last four years on monthly rent of Rs. 1,200. On the other hand appellant examined himself and stated that he is regular in payment of rent but due to tactics of respondent he has been finding difficulty in payment of rent as respondent has been collecting rent several months together and trying not to show whereabouts therefore he sent money order and finally deposited the rent in Misc. Rent Application. He produced rent agreement. During the pendency of rent case some additional affidavit alongwith documents were also filed by the landlady and preliminary objection and rejoinder were filed. The additional documents were kept on the record but the Rent Controller by an order dated 26th July 1987 refused to consider the same. It is an admitted position that rent in the Misc. rent application was deposited on 6-10-85 being rent from April 1985 to September, 1985. The plea taken by the appellant that due to lack of address and practice of collecting lump sum rent he has not committed default but sent money order which was refused. There is rent agreement between the parties in which it has not been stated that the rent is payable in advance. The Rent Controller has considered all the aspects of the case and from the record it is clear that appellant has committed default 'in payment of rent. Mr. Muneeruddin AM also argued that Rent Controller has wrongly decided the issue No. 2 of personal bona fide requirement against the respondent. Syed Anwarul Haque who is living in the rented house has also examined Ehsanur Rehman. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that rent deed has not been produced. Appellant in his evidence has not been produced any document showing that he has got his own house but stated in the affidavit-in-evidence that when the property in ques tion was vacant it was let Eat to him. This is no ground of discarding the evidence of attorney of respondent therefore I am of the view that personal requirement has also been proved. I set aside the Findings of the Rent Controller on this issue, and also order of ejectment on personal bona fide ground too. Finally the default has also been proved and issue No. 2 also decided against the appellant.
6. With the result that eviction order passed by the Rent Controller is maintained on issue No. 1 and on issue No. 2, the rent case is also allowed, and appellant is liable to eviction on this issue too.
7. M.Y.H./H-149/K
8. Appeal dismissed.