' This suit has been brought by the plaintiff/Board of Trustees of the Port of Karachi for recovery of Rs,54,144.50 with interest and costs.
' The defendants and their Advocate are called absent. The case was called earlier as well but at that time also none was present for the defendants. In the circumstances I proceed to decide the case under Order IX, rule 6, C.P.C. as the defendants are absent in spite of due service of summons upon them.
' In the plaint duly verified on oath by Mr. A.R.K. Tejani, Secretary of the plaintiffs it has been stated that plaintiff's land measuring about 125 square meters was, unauthorized and without obtaining sanction/permission, occupied by the defendants who stored some heavy packages/mill machinery from 17-10-1976 till 24-3-1978. The notice dated 19-3-1978 was served by the plaintiff upon the defendant wherein inter anti it was stated:- ' Subject:- Unauthorized occupation of K.P.T. Road Berm adjacent to plot No, 1 Timber Pond, Keamari.
' Dear Sir, ' It is reported that mill machinery lying on the road Berm near the northern boundary wall of Plot No, 1, Timber Pond, Keamari since 17-10-1976 belongs to you. In this connection a notice published in the newspapers about auctioning of this mill machinery is sent herewith for your information.
' Since the said Mill Machinery has occupied K.P.T. land measuring about 125 square meters, you are therefore requested to pay the use and occupation charges of Rs, 46,463 for the period from 17-10-1976 to 31-3-1978 and other charges mentioned in the said public notice, issued in the press within a week of receipt of this letter, failing which the machinery lying on the K.P.T. road Berm mentioned above shall be auctioned as per the said notice.
' It may be noted that use and occupation charges of the land shall be payable by you till the date of vacation of the K.P.T. road Berm.
Yours faithfully Sd/- Estate Officer."
' In reply, the defendants in their letter dated 22-3-1978 informed the plaintiffs that at the time of the storage of sugar machinery cases on the K.P.T. land they had intimated the plaintiff/K.P.T. and had undertaken to pay usual ground rent that might be levied on account of their occupying the plaintiff's land. They further stated as no bill was raised by the plaintiff they could not pay the ground rent till then. They also wrote to the plaintiff:- "However, we the Punjab Industrial Development Board hereby undertake to pay you the ground rent for the period the above land remained in our occupation."
' The plaintiffs vide their letter dated 28-3-1978 wrote to the defendants, on the assumption that the latter would vacate the land by 31-3-1978, demanding payment of Rs, 54,940.50. The detail of the claim thus made is given in the said letter which is reproduced below:-
(1) "Use and occupation charges for the period from 17-10-1976 to 31-3-1978.Rs. 46,463.00
(2) Expenses on publication of notice incurred by K.P.T. Rs. 1,276.50
(3) Interest. Rs. 7,201.00 Total Rs. 54,940.50"
' Subsequently finding that no payment was made for the period their land remained occupied by the defendant, the plaintiff filed the suit wherein finding that the defendant had actually vacated the plaintiff's K.P.T's land on 24-3-1978 they claimed decree against the defendants for Rs, 54,144.50 only instead of Rs, 54,940.50, as earlier demanded. The breakup of the claim made in the suit has been given in para. 6 of the plaint which for the sake of convenience is reproduced herein below:- "(i) Use and occupation charges from 17-10-1976 to 24-3-1978.Rs. 54,850.00"
(ii) Expenses incurred by K.P.T. on publication of notice. Rs. 1,276.50
(iii) Interest. Rs. 7,018.00 Total. Rs. 54,144.50.
2.The defendants filed their written statement in which they admitted to have written the letter dated 22-3-1978 to the plaintiff undertaking to pay them the ground rent for the period they remained in occupation on the plaintiffs' land. They also admitted the receipt of the plaintiffs' letter, dated 28-3-1978 but contended that the amount claimed therein, namely, Rs,54,940.50, was ill- conceived and exorbitant. According to the defendants they were liable to pay the usual ground rent and not the demand made. The fact that the machinery remained from 17-10-1976 till 25-3- 1978 upon the plaintiff's land has not been denied in the written statement.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- "(1) Whether or not the charges claimed by the plaintiff are reasonable? (2) What should the decree be and consequences of costs?"
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Abbas, has taken me through the pleadings of the parties and the correspondence exchanged. From the perusal of the record, facts which emerge are that the defendant admittedly occupied the plaintiff's land for the period from 17-10- 1976 till 24-3-1978. In the letter dated 19-3-1978 (Annxure 'A' to the plaint) the plaintiff demanded payment of occupation charges amounting to Rs,46,463 for the period from 17-10-1976 to 31-3-1978 besides other charges which were incurred by the plaintiff in issuing public notice for the auction of the defendants machinery stored unauthorized on their (K.P.T.) land. In reply to this demand the defendants had undertaken to pay the usual ground rent and the only plea raised in the reply dated 22-3-1978 (Annexure 'B' (to the plaint was that such payment could not be made as no demand was earlier raised and thus the defendants could not pay the ground rent. They further undertook to pay the ground rent for the period the above land remained in their occupation. The plaintiff thereafter served notice on 28-3-1978 and demanded payment of Rs,54,940.50 as mentioned above. It is important to note here that no reply was sent by the defendants to this demand made by the plaintiff. Even in the letter of 19th March, 1978 wherein Rs,46,463 had been claimed for the period from 17-10-1976 to 31-3-1978 the defendants except stating that they were ready and willing to pay the usual ground rent, did not raise any plea that the amount claimed was at an exorbitant rate or that it was ill conceived.
5. At the hearing of the suit the defendants have chosen to remain absent and as such there was no evidence on their part in rebuttal t the averments made in the plaint which is verified on oath. I accordingly hold that the defendants are liable to pay occupation charges for the period from 17- 10-1976 to 24-3-1978 which comes to Rs,45,850. As regards Rs,1,276.50 aimed on account of expenses incurred by K.P.T./plaintiffs on publication of public notice, I find that no document has been produced along with the plaint in support of this claim. Even now the learned counsel is not in a position to produce any receipt or document which could show that such an amount was incurred for which the defendants could be held liable.
' Mr. Abbas the learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that the claim for Rs,7,201 is on account of interest. I, however, find that no notice prior to the filing of the suit was served upon the defendants warning them that in case payment was not made they shall be held liable to pay interest besides the charges for use and occupation. In the claim in suit interest has been claimed amounting to Rs,7,018. However, neither the rate of interest nor the period, for which this amount by way of interest has been claimed, is given. There is not even a plea in the plaint that any notice was served upon the defendant that in case of their failure to pay the claim any interest would be charged from them.
6. For the above reasons, the defendants being absent the Court being conscious of its duty to protect the interest of the absentee defendants, finds that the plaintiff have failed to substantiate claim for interest and recovery of expenses allegedly incurred by them on publication of any notice. Neither any copy of the notice, which is alleged to have been published, nor the receipt for payment of the alleged expenses has been produced.
' The claim for the two items (expenses of publication and interest) is, therefore, disallowed.
7. I, therefore, while holding under Issue No, 1 that the amount of Rs, 45,850 claimed in the suit on account of occupation of plaintiffs' land is reasonable and is payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, further hold that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the other amounts claimed in the suit on account of alleged publication charged or interest for the period prior to the filing of the suit.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that under Issue No, 2, I decree the suit against the defendants for Rs, 45,850 with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment to the plaintiffs. 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.