MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-By the above-mentioned three petitions leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order dated 15-5-1983 passed by the Sind High Court, Karachi whereby First Rent Appeals Nos. 603, 604 and 605 of 1981 were dismissed. This order will dispose of the three C.P.S.L.As. i.e. K/321, K/322 and K/323 of 198 3.
2. The three petitioners are the tenants of the respondent. Ejectment applications were filed by Akhtar H. Ghori respondent against the petitioners in the Court of Xth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller who per his order dated 12-10-1981 held with regard to Ata Husain and Muhammad Ishaq that they have committed default in the payment of rent and directed them to vacate the premise in dispute within two months from the date of his order. In the case of Abdul Sattar the learned Rent Controller, vide his order of the same date, allowed the application for striking off his defence and directed Abdul Sattar petitioner to vacate the premises also within two months from the date of his order. Since the three appeals before the learned High Court were against the same landlord and in respect of shops in the same building, and similar questions of law and facts were involved the three appeals were dealt with by a consolidated judgment of the learned High Court dated 15-5- 1983.
3. The three petitioners are tenants of the respondent in building on Plot No. 198/C P. E. C. H. S. Karachi in respect of one shop each at a monthly rent of Rs.
158. On 30-1-1978 respondent filed applications separately for eviction of the three petitioners under section 13 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on the ground that they were habitual defaulters and had committed default in payment of rent. In the case of Abdul Sattar it was alleged that he failed do pay the rent from 5-5-1977 to 4-1-1978 while Ata Husain and Muhammad Ishaq petitioners defaulted in the payment of rent w.e.f. 15-5-1977 to 14-1-1978.
4. The petitioners contested the ejectment petitions and claimed to have made payment of the rent regularly and that no default in the payment had been made, and on the contrary the landlord refused to accept the monthly rent offered to him. Later on the rent was remitted by the petitioners by Money Orders which were returned 'unaccepted' by the landlord; that the landlord had adopted the tactic to evict the petitioners or to make them accept the enhanced rent. The learned Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioners and their First Rent Appeals also failed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Faizanul Haq contended that Ata Husain and Muhammad Ishaq petitioners were not afforded proper opportunity of being heard, and to cross- examine the respond--ent/landlord. He retied upon the decision of the Lahore High Court in Abdul tumid v. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 1981 Lah. 42), wherein it was inter alia observed that according to subsection (2) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 the respondent in each case was entitled to "a reasonable opportunity to defend the ejectment application filed against him. This argument would not prevail as we find that the respondent/ landlord gave evidence in respect of his ejectment applications and the record would show that the evidence of the respondent/landlord was recorded in the case against the petitioners/tenants Ata Hussain and he was cross-examined by Mr. Sh. Abdul Majeed, Advocate who also represented the other two petitioners/tenants, and the deposition including the cross-examination of the respondent/landlord was verbatim brought on the record in all the three proceedings. It may also be mentioned that the three petitioners were give full opportunity to defend the ejectment applications against them and the evidence in each case was separately, recorded: It is apparent from the deposition of Akhtar Hamid Ghori respondent in case of Ata Hussain where it was initially recorded, therefore the objection raised did not, at all, arise in Ata Hussain's case.
6. With regard to the case of Muhammad Ishaq it is correct that the deposition of the respondent was brought on the record but at the same time it is also evident that the case of Ata Hussain and Muhammad Ishaq is the same even as regards the alleged default in the payment of rent. The Advocate representing the three tenants was present and his presence is established by his having cross-examined the respondent, and no objection was raised to the procedure adopted by the learned Rent Controller. In the case cited by the petitioners' counsel the facts are quite distinguishable. The evidence on the file of the two cases decided in the reported case was verbatim reproduction of the evidence recorded in the other case. It was observed that it was not known as to which is the case wherein the evidence was first. Recorded. In other words it was not possible to single out the case which was properly heard and, therefore, the trial of the two applications was held to be irregular, but it is not so in the present case. Moreover the appeal of Abdul S attar was not pressed before the learned High Court Judge. Thus the impugned order cannot be reopened with regard to Abdul Sattar's petition: We find no merit in the Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. K/321, K/322 and K/323 and the same, are, accordingly, dismissed. We, however, allow four months time for vacation of the shops by the petitioners/tenants voluntarily.
Rent for these four months to be paid regularly.
M. Z. M. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.