' This appeal is filed under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, against the order of the 6th Rent Controller and Civil Judge, Karachi. The learned Rent Controller in all framed six issues on various pleas, including the one on the ground of default in payment of rent. Some of the issues were not pressed, whereas on other findings were given in favour of the appellant except the one on the ground of default in payment of rent which he decided in favour of the respondent and ordered ejectment of the appellant from the premises in dispute. Hence this appeal.
2. I have gone through the relevant evidence on the record and have also heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The alleged default in payment of rent is for a period of 34 years. The alleged default is admitted on behalf of the appellant but it is alleged that the rent was to be adjusted towards an amount of Rs, 5,000 paid as deposit and some other amounts totalling Rs, 1,117 incurred towards Sui gas, construction of water tank and payment of taxes as agreed between the parties. The appellant admittedly did not produce any receipts for the payment of the above amounts towards deposit and incurring of expenses on Sui gas, construction of water tank and payment of taxes. It is contended on his behalf by his learned counsel that the respondent landlord has failed to produce her account books in support of the contentions of default, but I find that in case such payments and the deposit had been made and the expenses incurred towards such payments, the appellant/tenant must have insisted for the receipts either from the respondent for the deposit of Rs, 5,000 or from others for the expenses incurred on sui gas, construction of water tank and payment of taxes, and must not have made the payments without obtaining such receipts, in case, there was any such agreement. Ordinarily, it was not possible for the respondent landlady to have maintained the accounts to produce the same in Court in evidence in such a situation. It is therefore, clear that in view of the evidence on the record the respondent discharged the burden that lay on her since the appellant-tenant has been proved persistent defaulter in payment of rent which was Ai admittedly for a period of 34 years. The learned Rent Controller, therefore, rightly ordered his ejectment on that ground and his order in that respect does not call for interference.
3. The result is that the appeal is dismissed summarily.