Syed MUHAMMAD ALI vs Mst. AISHA

1. ' The appellant filed an ejectment application against the respondent on the ground of default in payment of rent from August, 1976 to June, 1977. The second ground was that the appellant requires the premises for his own personal bona fide requirement and occupation and for the use of his family members. The respondent denied the allegations and pleaded that the appellant used to recover rent after several months, and there was a practice to pay accumulated rent in this manner. It was pleaded that his son used to come and collect the rent after several months and pass on receipt for every month. The Collector dismissed the application holding that none of the grounds were established by the appellant.

2. ' Mr. K.M. Nadeem contended that non-payment of rent from August, 1976 to June, 1977 has been admitted and as the tenancy was under the agreement in which address of the appellant was available, the respondent could either remit the rent by money order or deposit it in Court and, therefore, there was a clear default.

3. ' Mr. S. H. Rizvi has on the other hand contended that copy of the agreement was not given to the respondent and according to the statement of the appellant at the time of agreement he was at Khanewal, but the address given in the agreement is that of Landhi, Karachi. Therefore, it was not possible for the respondent to remit it by money order or deposit it in Court. From the evidence of the parties it is clear that the rent has not been paid from August, 1976 to June, 1977. The plea raised by the respondent is that she was paying rent in accumulated form in accordance with the practice that had developed. The burden was on the respondent which has not been discharged.

4. Even if this practice is proved in view of PLD 1984 SC 32 it is of no avail.

5. ' The second contention that the respondent did not have the address of the appellant as the copy of the agreement was not supplied to him, therefore, neither he could remit the rent nor deposit it in Court, has no force. It is an admitted position that somebody has been coming and collecting the rent on behalf of the appellant, and therefore, it was not difficult to obtain address of the appellant. The respondent should have established the fact that although there is a written agreement, its copy n had not been supplied to her. In any event if the address was not available the respondent could have availed the procedure provided under law of depositing the same in Court.

6. The second ground of the appellant is that he requires the premise* for his use and occupation. In this regard his statement is not sufficient to establish the requirement. He has stated that he is living in a rented house, but has not produced an iota of evidence to substantiate this ground. On this plea he cannot succeed. In the result the appeal is allowed] on the ground of default in payment of rent.

7. ' By consent four months time is granted to the respondent to vacate the disputed premises.