' SALMAN HAMID, J.---Rent Case No,154 of 2007, (Rent Case) was filed by Mst. Shamim Begum, mother of the present respondents Nos.1 to 6, (Respondents) for eviction of 'Dr. Ahmed Ali, son of Muhammad timer, (Petitioner) on the grounds of default and personal bona fide need, which Rent Case was decided in favour of the respondents by IX-Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi, East, (Rent Controller) in terms of Order dated "25-2-2010 when the petitioner was directed to vacate House No,L-17, Block No,16/A, KDA Overseas Bungalows, Gulistan-e-Jauhar, KDA Scheme No,36, Karachi, (Demised Bungalow) within, thirty days from the date of the Order of eviction. First Rent Appeal No,205 of 2010, (ERA) was preferred by the petitioner, which too was dismissed in terms of Order dated 7-7-2010 by the I-Additional District Judge Karachi, East, (I-ADJ), upholding the Order of eviction, passed by the Rent Controller on the grounds of default and personal bona fide need. Present constitution petition, (Petition) is the result of above Orders passed by the Rent.
Controller and by the I-ADJ.
2 It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the two courts below failed to appreciate that the late husband, and the late mother of the respondents were in habit of filing frivolous rent cases against the petitioner and that most of such rent cases were either dismissed or withdrawn by them and that the Rent Case was one of those such frivolous litigations to harass and intimidate the petitioner. It was also urged that the need of the late mother and/or of the respondents was not bona fide inasmuch as the daughters of late Mst. Shamim Begum are married and that for the sons the other property was sufficient. It was also urged that there was no default in payment of rent and such was regularly tendered through MRC No, 125 of 2003 and that even otherwise payment of rent was the responsibility of government of Sindh who had requisitioned the Demised Bungalow. It was also argued that the two courts below did not appreciate the evidence correctly and/or misread the same whereby grave prejudice had been caused to the petitioner when the two courts below glowed the Rent Case and dismissed the FRA. It was next contended that the two courts below did not appreciate the taw involved in the case and decided the Rent Case and the FRA in a slipshod manner and therefore, it was urged that the decisions of the two courts below be set aside and the Petition be granted as prayed.
3. Opposing the petition it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the decisions of the two courts require no interference inasmuch as the same are based on proper appreciation of evidence and that this court would not interfere into the concurrent findings, more particularly when it is exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and where the petitioner failed in showing that the decisions were outcome of non- reading or misreading of evidence or perverse and the decisions reached by the courts below has prejudiced the petitioner by not appreciating the evidence in its true perspective. It was also urged that Exhibit A/10, which was a statement showing deposit of rent exposed the petitioner that he was a defaulter and a chronic one. It was asserted that default having been looked into by the two courts below finding on it (default) came against the petitioner. As to the personal need it was urged that it is a settled law by now that it is not the desire of the tenant which should prevail in choosing the premises by the landlord but otherwise and that in the present case it having come on record that the petitioner failed to establish that need of the respondents was not bona fide, eviction on personal requirement of the Demised Bungalow was also ordered, which require no interference of this court. It was asserted that the petition be dismissed with cost.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. Petitioner became tenant of Demised Bungalow in terms of a tenancy agreement dated 16-4- 1992, entered into between him, (Petitioner) and late husband of Mst. Shamim Begum (also died during progress of Rent Case, where-after respondents joined proceedings) and father of the respondents at a monthly rent of Rs,3,500. After death of father of respondents on or about 23-2- 2000, Demised Bungalow upon execution of deed of relinquishment by respondents in favour of their mother, (Mst. Shamim Begum) devolved upon her and she, thereafter, by a Notice dated 4-12- 2002, (Exhibit A/6) informed the petitioner of such change in ownership of the Demised Bungalow and also requested him, (Petitioner) to vacate it (Demised Bungalow) as the same was needed for personal bona fide use
6. It seems that despite above Notice of change of ownership and a request for vacation of the Demised Bungalow, such was not vacated with the result that Mst. Sharnim Begum filed Rent Case No,10 of 2003 against the petitioner. The petitioner on his turn preferred Miscellaneous Rent Case No,125 of 2003 (MRC) before the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, East on the ground that he never received notice dated 4-12-2002 regarding change of ownership and came to know of the same upon receipt of notices of Rent Case No,10 of 2003 and to save himself from any default in payment of rent he started depositing the same in MRC. (Copy of MRC is available from pages 63 to 67 Annexure A/8 of. The R&P which was summoned by the court).
7. It is also available on record that earlier in time late father of the respondents filed Rent Case No,644 of 1994 against the petitioner and upon its dismissal, on the grounds, amongst other that earlier another Rent Case No,621 of 1994 was filed on the same ground as were raised in Rent Case No,644 of 1994, First Rent Appeal No,2110 of 1996 was preferred before this Court, which was subsequently transferred to the District Court and First Rent Appeal No,210 of 1995 was re- numbered as First Rent Appeal No,129 of 2001 which too was dismissed by by Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi vide judgment dated 9-1-2002. It may be noted that when First Rent Appeal No,129 of 2001 was pending before this court and was registered as First Rent Appeal No,210 of 1996, it was ordered by this court that the petitioner deposit rent of the Demised Bungalow with the Nazir of this Court in view of the fact that the Demand Bungalow was requisitioned by the government of Sindh and rent was to be deducted from the salary of the petitioner.
8. It may also be noted that the Demised Bungalow was requisitioned by the government of Sindh in January,. 1993 and subsequently late father of the respondents obtained order dated 26-7-1993 for de-requisition of the Demised Bungalow which was challenged by the petitioner by filing Suit No,1090 of 1993 before the district courts wherein status quo order was also obtained by him and finally in 1998 Demised Bungalow was de-requisitioned vide order No,DCE/JD/(Rdr)/1941/98, dated July, 1998.
9. In this backdrop of the case- and despite de-requisition of the Demised Bungalow in 1998, it appears that the petitioner continued to deposit rent of the Demised Bungalow with the Nazir of this court upto the date of filing of MRC before the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi as evident from paragraph 4 thereof (MRC) wherein it was mentioned by the petitioner that he, "had to fulfil the requirement of law towards payment of monthly rent which he has been paying/depositing with the Nazir of Hon'ble High Court under direction in previous litigation at the rate of Rs,3500 per month". It seems that because of the above position viz-a-viz the unilateral act of the petitioner in depositing rent in MRC without it being refused to be accepted by the late mother of respondents and despite the fact that the Demised Bungalow was de-requisitioned she (late mother of respondents) after withdrawing Rent Case No,10 of 2003 filed Rent Case on the grounds of default and personal need.
10. Exhibit A-10 was a summary of statement showing' deposit of rent of Demised Bungalow by the petitioner in MRC which was tendered in evidence before the Rent Controller in the Rent Case and read as under:-- Date Credit Debit Balance 18-7- 2003Rs. 1400 Rs. 1400 9-8- 2003Rs. 3500 Rs. 17500 11-9- 2003Rs. 3500 Rs. 21000 10-10- 2003Rs. 3500 Rs. 24500 10-11- 2003Rs. 3500 Rs. 28000 6-12- 2003Rs. 3500 Rs. 31500 10-1-2001Rs. 3500 Rs. 35000 10-2- 2004Rs. 3500 Rs.38500 12-4- 2004Rs. 3500 Rs. 42000 10-5- 2004Rs. 3500 Rs. 45500 11-6- 2004Rs. 3500 Rs. 49000 10-7- 2004Rs. 3500 Rs. 52500 12-10- 2004Rs. 3500 Rs. 56000 7-1-2005Rs. 3500 Rs. 59500 9-8- 2005Rs. 3500 Rs. 63500 13-4- 2005Rs. 3500 Rs. 66500 12-5- 2005Rs. 3500 Rs. 70000 7-6- 2005Rs. 3500 Rs. 73500 13-8- 2005Rs. 3500 Rs. 77000 8-9- 2005Rs. 3500 Rs. 80500 18-11- 2005Rs. 3500 Rs. 84000 3-2- 2006Rs. 3500 Rs. 87500 3-4- 2006Rs. 3500 Rs. 91000 9-6- 2006Rs. 7000 Rs. 98000 23-5- 2006Cq.
2019925Rs. 87,500Rs.10500 22-7- 2006Rs. 3500 Rs. 14000 15-8- 2006Rs. 3500 Rs. 17500 8-11- 2006Rs. 10,500 Rs. 28000
11. Bare perusal of the statement/Exhibit A/10 would show that petitioner failed to deposit the rent regularly and there was a default of payment of rent of the months of March, August, September, November and December, 2004 and February, July, October and December, 2005 and January, March, 2006. In view of this clear and blatant default, the two courts below came to the conclusion that there was wilful default on the part of the petitioner. It may be noted that deposit of rent of Demised Bungalow in MRC was without any reason as nowhere it came on record that it was refused. There was violation of provisions of subsection 384 of section 10 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
12. Similarly, as to the personal need, it was observed by the two courts below that petitioner failed to dislodge the personal need of the respondents and that the petitioner was nobody to decide for the respondents as to in which of the properties they should live in when it was argued by the petitioner that one more property is, in possession of the respondents bearing House No,88/1, 9th Commercial Street, Phase-IV, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi and that the respondents can very well live therein. Since there was nothing on record to dislodge the claim of the personal need of the respondents the same went in their favour.
13. From the above exposition, it has become clear that there are concurrent findings against the petitioner which cannot be lightly and casually interfered with by this Court, more particularly when this court is exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, .1973 and no-misreading and non-reading of evidence was highlighted or brought to its notice whereby prejudice had been caused to the petitioner. The petitioner could not point out any violation of law being committed by the two courts below or that it was shown that the two courts below acted in the manner which was to be detriment of the petitioner and was perverse or not in accordance with the evidence that was brought on record. The only legal ground that was raised by the petitioner was that since the Demised Bungalow was requisitioned by the government of Sindh, the rent ought to have been paid by it was never a liability of the petitioner. It may be noted that there is an order available on the record of the file, which is also mentioned above that the Demised Bungalow was derequisitioned in July, 1998 and thereafter it became the exclusive responsibility of the petitioner to make payment of the rent of the Demised Bungalow to the respondents which he failed and in his own wisdom started depositing in MRC without caring much that once the Demised Bungalow had been derequisitioned and the FRA that was filed also disposed of, the rmt ought to have had been tendered directly to the respondents which admittedly was not tendered and is also evident from the statement of account reproduced above. It was not pleaded that the petitioner attempted to tender the rent to the respondents and upon their refusal it was money ordered which too was refused and thereafter left with no choice, the petitioner stated depositing the same in MRC. The petitioner had jurisdiction in deposit of rent in MRC.
14. Looking at the above facts and circumstances, this petition was found to be meritless and was dismissed on 23-11-2011 by a short order, reasons whereof are these.