SYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, Sarwari Begum respondent No,1 has filed petition under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 before the learned Rent Controller Dera Ismail Khan, wherein she has sought ejectment of the present petitioner from Shop No,2, situated in Khyber Market D.I. Khan, fully described in the heading of the petition and for the recovery of outstanding rent for the past ten months at the fate of Rs,1250 per month and future rent at the same rate. It is averred by the respondent-landlady in her petition that initially the demised premises was rented out to the petitioner-tenant on monthly rent of Rs,500 but later on the rent was increased up to Rs,1250 per month on the basis of agreement. That the security amount (Pagri), paid by the petitioner-tenant, has already been returned to him. The grounds agitated by the respondent-landlady in her petition are, that petitioner-tenant chronic defaulter in payment of rent; he has caused material damage to the shop in question and that the shop is required for her own personal, bona tide need. The petitioner-tenant contested the petition by filing his replication wherein he has denied the allegations levelled by the respondent- landlady. Issues were framed and ample opportunity for adducing pro and contra evidence was provided to both the parties and the learned Rent Controller, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, accepted the application of the respondent-landlady and granted decree in her favour as prayed for.
2. Being aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner-tenant filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge D.I. Khan, which too was dismissed, hence, the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, at the very outset, contended that the petitioner-tenant has paid a sum of Rs,1,10,000 (one Lac and ten thousands) as security "Pagri" to the respondent-landlady at the time when he entered into possession of the suit premises as tenant, but the learned Rent Controller has refused to pass any order regarding return of the said security amount; that while concurring with the findings of the learned Rent Controller, the learned appellate. Court has also not passed any order regarding return of the security amount. In support of his contention the learned counsel pointed out that the respondent-landlady regarding receipt of the security amount has executed an agreement and she has also acknowledged the same in Para No,1 of her petition but she has failed to prove its return to the petitioner-tenant.
4. As against that, learned counsel for the respondent-landlady supported the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below and further contended that the petitioner-tenant has received the security amount and nothing is outstanding.
5. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and record thoroughly perused.
6. From the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and after going through the judgments passed by both the Courts below, it is quite evident that the payment of security "Pagri" amounting to Rs,1,10,000 is admitted by the respondent-landlady in her pleading as well as in the agreement on the basis of which tenancy was created in favour of the petitioner tenant, however, she has miserably failed to prove its return to the petitioner-tenant. During course of the arguments, learned counsel, for the respondent-landlady was asked, that if there was any evidence available on the record to support the contention of the respondent-landlady regarding return of the security amount to the petitioner-tenant, the learned counsel was unable to point out any such evidence in support of his arguments. Since, the respondent-landlady has failed to prove by any sort of evidence the return of the security amount, therefore, there is no option with us but to accept the instant petition to the extent of payment of Rs,1,10,000 as security "pagri". Resultantly, this petition is partially allowed. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are modified to the extent of payment of Rs,1,10,000 as security amount to be paid by the respondent-landlady to the petitioner-tenant. The remaining findings of the learned courts below are maintained as the same were not questioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant before us.