ABDUL REHMAN Versus MUHAMMAD SULEMAN
1. The 21 Respondents herein jointly own Haji Ayub Building situated on Plot No.1Y first Survey No.162, Old Survey No.K‑1/P.O. 102, Bandukwala Road, Kaddah, Karachi. Houses bearing Nos.S‑4 and 5 on its first floor are tenanted by the appellant, Abdul Rahman on the monthly rent of Rs.80 for each premises.
2. On 16‑2‑1989 the respondents herein filed two applications separately in respect of each premises under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 seeking ejectment of their tenant, Abdur Rahman, on the ground that the premises in question were needed for the personal bona fide use of Akram, Mohammad and Zakaria three of the applicants and that tenant was causing nuisance and had damaged the building. 'their cases were registered as Rent Case No.368/1989 in respect of the House No.4, while Rent Case No.369/1989 was registered in the respect of the House No.5. The appellant resisted Goth these cases.
3. Again on 17‑8‑1989 the respondents herein filed two other applications seeking ejectment of their very same tenant from the same premises on the ground that tenant had committed default in payment of. rent since March, 1989 till August, 1989 and failed to pay electric and gas charges for the past one year. Their cases were registered as Rent Case No. 1132 of 1989 in respect of premises No. 4 and 1133 of 1989 in respect of the premises No. 5. The tenant resisted, these applications as well.
4. During the course of hearing of the earlier two cases where ejectment was sought on the ground of personal bona fide use, nuisance and damage caused to the property the respondents contended themselves to seek ejectment only on the ground of personal bona fide use.
5. Both the parties adduced evidence in the cases and the Rent Controller found that the premises in question were needed for the personal bona fide use of the two applicants and ordered his ejectment from both the premises by the two judgment passed by him on 4‑8‑1990.
6. In the other two cases the parties led evidence and on the basis of the evidence recorded in the two cases the Rent Controller by his two judgments passed on 17‑7‑1990 ordered ejectment of the appellant on the ground that he has committed default in payment of rent.
7. As the result of the four judgment passed in the four rent applications the appellant has been ejected from both the premises on the grounds of having committed default in payment of rent and that the premises are required for the bona fide use of landlords.
8. The appellant has now filed these four appeals (F.RAs. No.381/382/422/423 of 1990) against the judgment, mentioned hereinabove. As these appeals are between the same parties and common facts and questions of law ‑are involved in the same I proceed to decide these by this common judgment.
9. F.R.A. No.381/382 of 1990:
10. These two appeal arise out of the two cases where the appellant has been ordered to be ejected from the two premises on the ground of having committed default in payment of rent.
11. Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, Advocate for the Appellant mainly contended that during the trial of the cases before the Rent Controller appellant had produced photostat copies of money orders etc. to prove that in fact no default in payment of rent was committed by him. The Rent Controller ignored such material documents as according to him these documents were merely photostat copies ‑and were inadmissible under the Qanun‑e-Shahadat. He has produced the original copies of these documents in these appeals.
12. He, however, has not filed any application under section 21(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, to bring the documents on the record of the , appeals In spite of it Mr. Mahmood A.H. Baloch, Advocate for the respondents stated that he has no objection if these documents are kept on record of the appeals and appeals decided after considering that evidence as well. In view of such concession these documents are kept on record.
13. Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, Advocate for the appellant further contends that after the respondents had refused to accept rent appellant had tendered rent through money order and ultimately deposited all the arrears in the Misc. Rent Cases. It clearly shows that the appellant did not intend to commit default in payment of rent and was in fact vigilant enough to pay the rent. He has referred to cases reported in 1983 CLC 346 and 1986 SCMR 1857 on the point.
14. Mr. Mahmood A.H. Baloch, Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that the first original money order receipt bearing No.02350 dated 2nd March, 1989 for remittance of Rs.160 according to the certificate Annexure "C" on page 39 of the record of F.R.A. No.381/90 merely indicates that the rent for the month of February, 1989 was remitted. The other receipt No.3354 for Rs.160 was for January, 1989, similarly the third receipt No.07116 was for December, 1988. Thereafter the appellant deposited an amount of Rs.160 in the Misc. Rent Case for the first time on 12th September, 1989 after respondents refused to accept the amount tendered by money order in August, 1989. According to him even if the first receipt of Rs.160 be treated as a rent for the month of March as claimed by the appellant the default in terms of section 15(2)(ii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 has been committed and appellant has rendered himself liable to be ejected. The appellant has also committed default in payment of rent even during the pendency of the appeal with the result that this Court had ordered him to deposit a sum of Rs.560 in each case being arrears for seven months in respect of each of the premises. He, therefore, argued that the appellant is a persistent defaulter. He further pointed out that admittedly the appellant did not pay electric and gas charges for over two years and has perhaps deposited the same about a month back.
15. F.R.As. Nos.422L423 of 1990:
16. Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, Advocate for the appellant in these two appeals mainly contended that respondents owned more than one building having a number of apartments in each of the buildings and further that eight apartments fell vacant in the year 1988 which were let out while respondents claimed that they needed the premises since 1987 since the two of the applicants were engaged and their marriages were being .postponed for want of accommodation. In the circumstances according to him the requirement of the respondents is not bona fide. He referred to the statement of Mohammad Sulleman the respondent No. 1 herein who had admitted in his cross‑examination that eight such flats had fallen vacant.
17. Mr. Mahmood A.H. Baloch, Advocate for the respondents contended that the entire building in question is in fact occupied by one or the other member of the family having twenty‑one families to house. The Respondent No.1 had stated in his cross‑examination that except the two premises in question the rest of the apartments in the building are occupied by the members of their family and the two apartments in question .are required for respondents Nos.7 and 8. He further pointed out that evidence of a witness is required to be read as a whole and its value is to be evaluated on the basis of the entire evidence.
18. The respondents in the rent case culminating in FRA No.381/1990 and FRA No.382/1990 have by sufficient reliable evidence proved that appellant committed default in the payment of rent from March to August, 1989 in addition to non‑payment of electric and gas charges for over a year. There is ' no evidence of any payment of rent for such period either by way of tender or deposit in Misc. Rent Case before September, 1989. In view of this there is no force in these appeals which are dismissed.
19. As regards F.R.As. Nos.422 and 423 of 1990 the ejectment is claimed on the personal bona fide requirement. Overwhelming evidence has been produced by the respondents to prove their bona fide need of the two premises each consisting of a room only.
20. The appellant had set up a plea that the premises in question will be let out by the respondents on higher rent or on receipt of "Pugri". Such apprehension is unfounded as section 15‑A of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 takes care of it and in event the respondents do not use the premises for their own use as claimed appropriate action can always be taken by the appellant under that section.
21. In view of above there is no force in these two appeals as well and are dismissed.
22. By consent of Mr. Mahmood .A.H. Baloch, Advocate for the respondents the appellant shall not be ejected from the premises for next three months provided he continues to deposit rent regularly. In case the appellant commits default in payment of rent or does not hand over the, possession on expiry of three months from today writ of possession shall be issued by the executing Court without notice to the appellant.
23. H.B.T./A‑1176/K Appeals dismissed