IRFAN ALI Versus ANWAR HAMEED
RANA BHAGWAN DAS, J.- --Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 6-12-1999 passed by the learned High Court of Sindh in F.R.A. No.282 of 1998 concurring with the view taken by the Rent Controller directing ejectment of the petitioners from the residential premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal requirement of the respondent.
2. Respondent sought ejectment of the petitioners from the tenanted premises on the ground of default in payment of rent including electricity, gas, water and conservancy charges as well as bona fide personal requirement of the premises for his own use and occupation. Respondent resisted the eviction application and disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant. Accordingly learned Rent Controller struck down three relevant issues for decision and upon assessment of the evidence concluded that there was relationship of landlord an4 tenant between the parties; that the petitioner defaulted in payment of electric, gas, water and conservancy charges and that respondent had established his bona fide personal need for the demised premises. This order was challenged in the High Court but without any success, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Leaned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that both the Courts below had failed to appreciate that the petitioner had paid rent for the months of December, 1993 and January, 1994 by money order which A was duly admitted by the respondent whereafter the rent was deposited in Miscellaneous Rent Case No.256 of 1994 in the office of the Rent Controller.
4. Learned counsel is partially correct to the extent of admission of receipt of rent by money order for the months of December, 1993 and January, 1994 by the respondent but he utterly failed to explain and establish from the record that the petitioner had not defaulted in payment of rent for the month of November, 1993 as alleged by the respondent and accepted by the two Courts. He was confronted with the candid and unequivocal admission of the petitioners' attorney Chaudhary Furqan Rashid Ali to the effect that in November, 1993 he did pay the rent to the respondent voluntarily stating that the latter did not come to collect the rent. This admission is also consistent with and in consonance with order under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, 1979) passed by the Rent Controller on 22-12-1997 directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2,000 from November, 1993 within one month of the date of order. Furthermore, petitioners' attorney who appeared in the dock was compelled to concede in his evidence that at the time of filing rent case arrears of electricity bill amounting to Rs.21,000 were due though he conveniently avoided to admit that arrears on account of .gas charges to the extent of Rs.3,5,00 were also due and payable. It is, thus, not difficult to concur with the finding of the Rent Controller duly affirmed by the High Court that the petitioners were in default in payment of rent including utility charges.
5. Adverting to the question of personal requirement of the premises bona fide by the respondent he was able to establish his requirement of the premises for self-occupation which was genuine and reasonable on the face of it. Even otherwise this plea does not appear to have been seriously contested by and on behalf of the petitioners. Indeed, the petitioners had chosen to adopt an unreasonable and adament attitude by denying very title of the respondent is owner and landlord of the premises which stand was later dropped at the stage of evidence. It was rather asserted that certain amount of rent was paid in advance and still a larger sum by way of fixed deposit was with the landlord at the time of commencement of tenancy. ,
6. Since the petitioners have not been able to substantiate whether the requirement of the respondent for the premises for his own use and occupation. was unreasonable or mala fide, there does not appear to be any cogent reason to differ with the view taken by the two Courts below concurrently. Furthermore, the view taken by the learned High Court is C neither arbitrary nor in violation of the settled principles of law or contrary to the evidence on record.
7. For the aforesaid facts and reasons leave to appeal is refused and petition is dismissed. The petitioners are, however, allowed two months.' time to vacate the premises subject to payment of usual rent and all utility charges failing which writ of ejectment shall issue without any prior notice.
M.B.A./I-5/S Petition dismissed.