' Respondents are the legal heirs of deceased Chowdhry Ghulam Muhammad, owner and landlord of the premises in question. Appellant is the tenant. Rent Case No, 3696 of 1967 was filed by deceased Chowdhry Ghulam Muhammad on 30th November, 1967 before the Rent Controller, Karachi. Ejectment application was granted by the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 12th August, 1975. Rent Appeal No, 506 of 1975 was filed by the appellant/tenant but the learned 1Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi, agreeing. With the finding of the learned Rent Controller, dismissed the appeal of the appellant/tenant by his order dated 26th April, 1978. By this second appeal the appellant challenges the two impugned orders dated 12th August, 1975 and 25th April, 1978. It may be observed that the ejectment application had been granted on the ground of default. I have heard Mr. S. Alay Hasan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Moinuddin Ahmed, who has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
2. The case of the appellant/tenant has been that the rent had been paid and there was no default on his part but rent receipts were not being issued promptly by the landlord and in some cases late receipts were given that is the rent was being paid in time but receipts were given much later.
It was also contended on behalf of the appellant that a notice dated 14th November, 1967 had been, given by the appellant to the landlord stating that rent had been paid up-to-date but the respondent had issued receipts for certain period only and when the appellant insisted the respondent to issue receipts for further payment, the request was refused and the appellant was threatened with dire consequences. In para. 3 of the notice dated 14th November, 1967 it was also mentioned that the appellant had worked as an electrician on another plot which he had not been paid an amount of Rs, 1,000. The notice called upon the respondent to pay the sum of Rs, 1,000 and to issue receipts for the period after April, 1965. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that within six days of this notice dated 14th November, 1967 the respondent filed the ejectment case and this shows that it was a counter-blast to the notice given by the appellant and the respondents have no case against the appellant for ejectment.
3. In para. 6 of the written statement of the appellant filed in the ejectment case it is averred that on 29th November, 1965 the appellant had received a notice from the respondents to pay the rent of Rs, 690 and on 4th May, 1966 the appellant paid Rs, 30 plus Rs, 90 to the respondents for which receipts were issued. These receipts are Exhs. D/1 and D/2. Exh. D/1 is dated 4th May, 1966. It shows the rate of rent as Rs, 30 per month and it acknowledges receipt of Rs, 90 from the appellant as rent for the months of January, February and March, 1965. Exh. D/1 is dated 4th May, 1966 and it acknowledges the receipt of amount of Rs, 30 from the appellant on account of rent for the month of April, 1965. In his deposition, the appellant has not stated that he had paid these amounts during the months in respect of which the receipts were issued. The view taken by the learned First Appellate Authority that in these circumstances it can be taken as correct that these amounts of Rs, 90 and Rs, 30 were paid on 4th May, 1966 when the receipts were issued is not erroneous. The two Courts below have reached the conclusion that rent was not paid with effect from May, 1965 and the evidence brought on record supports this finding. The very fact that two receipts were issued by the respondents shows that the receipts were issued or that the receipts could be obtained by the appellant on payment of A rent. From the evidence the appellant has not been able to establish that he had paid the rent with effect from May, 1965 and receipts were not issued by the respondents. The fact that ejectment application had been filed six days after the notice dated 14th November, 1967 of the appellant, does not demolish the case of the respondents, which has been proved by their evidence on record.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant bad laid great stress on distress warrant application dated 1st April, 1968 in which rent was claimed by the respondents from the appellant for the period from 1st April, 1967 to 31st March, 1968. In this distress warrant application it was mentioned that the appellant had already paid rent at rate claimed in distress warrant application for more than 35 months. It was contended that these 35 months are the months immediately prior to 1st April, 1967 with effect from which date the rent was claimed and if this is admitted, the conclusion would be that the rent had been paid upto 31st March, 1968. It may be observed here that after the filing of the ejectment application a tentative rent order had been passed and the arrears of rent were required to be deposited by the appellant in two instalment and as the first instalment was not paid, during the pendency of the ejectment case, the distress warrant application had been filed on 1st April, 1968 by the respondents. In my view, the distress warrant application is not to be looked at separately. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the distress warrant application is to be considered in the light of the pleadings of the ejectment case. Under the law, at that time, a distress warrant application for recovery of rent could be made only in respect of 12 months immediately prior to the filing of the distress warrant application, and it is for this reason that the rent was claimed in the distress warrant application from 1st April, 1967 to 31st March, 1968. It may also be observed that no defence was taken by the appellant in the distress warrant proceedings that the amount claimed was paid. This also indicates that in any case the rent had not been paid by the appellant w. e. f. 1st April, 1967.
5. Learned Rent Controller and the learned First Appellate Authority have come to the conclusion, as observed earlier, that default had been committed in the payment of rent w. e. f. May, 1965 and I see no illegality or impropriety in the two orders calling for interference by this Court in second appeal. As a result, Second Appeal No, 212 of 1978 is dismissed but with no order as to costs, as costs are not claimed by Mr. Moinuddi Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondents. By consent of learned counsel for the respondents, time is granted till 31st October, 1983 to the appellant to vacate the premises in question.