1. ' This is a Second Appeal under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 filed by Muhammad Ashraf/tenant (hereinafter to be referred as appellant) against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, dated 20-4-1980 whereby he set aside the order of the Rent Controller and ordered the ejectment of appellant.
2. ' The facts are that the appellant is tenant of Plot No, 15, Shah Latifabad, Unit No, 6, situated on Plots Nos. 55, 56 and 58, Hyderabad on monthly rent of Rs, 120 per month. On 19-11-1978, Ch. Muhammad Sardar/landlord (hereinafter to be referred as the respondent) filed rent application under section 13 of Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 wherein he has stated that the appellant has failed to pay the rent, electricity and water charges from March, 1978 till filing of the case i. e. 19-11-1978. The learned Rent Controller on 31-7-1979, dismissed the rent application. Respondent filed first appeal in the Court of District Judge, Hyderabad, which was sent to the Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, who by judgment, dated 20-4-1980 allowed the appeal of respondent and ordered the eviction of appellant. Mr. S. Sami Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant contended 'hat the appellant offered rent for the month of March, 1978 alongwith electricity charges to Munshi of respondent who normally used to accept the rent but rent was not accepted and he demanded the enhanced rent. The contention of the appellant/tenant is that he sent rent for the month of March, 1978 alongwith electricity charges by a money order which was returned. He has further argued that the appellant in the month of June, 1978 sent Rs, 540 being the rent and electric charges etc. For the months of March, April, May, and June, 1978 and that the money order was returned. Respondent and appellant both have not examined any other witness in their support. r.
3. Muhammad Umer Daudi, Advocate for respondent argued that the appellant not been able to prove through any document that he tendered the rent but he had only relied on the certificate Annexure 'B' in the file of Appeal, issued by Sub-Postmaster, Shah Latifabad Building Hyderabad on 11-5-1980. Appellant before Rent Controller has not stated that he sent rent of February, 1978 by money order nor he produced any document.
4. ' The learned counsel for the appellant/tenant has cited PLD 1967 Pesh. 96, 1980 CLC 1002 and PLD 1976 Kar. 53.
5. ' In a case Muhammad Sabir v. Abdul Malik it has been held that rent sent on wrong address shown in the money order is not sufficient per se that money order was sent to the person other than the landlord but in the present case no proof whatsoever has been placed on the record whether rent was actually tendered ? Therefore, the present case is a distinguishable from the case reported.
6. The case referred as Rehmatullah v. Fateh Muhammad is on the point that opportunity was not afforded for producing the document but in the present case full opportunity was given to the respondent. In a case Messrs Adil Brothers Karachi Ltd. v. Messrs Amin Art Press and another (1) is also distinguishable where it has been held that discretion exercised by the lower Court can only be interfered when it is exercised arbitrary or unarbitrary. In the present case I have gone through the evidence and found that respondent in his written objection has not mentioned that he ever sent the rent for the months of March, April and May, 1978 by money orders every month. Morever, the receipts of postal authorities or copies in the counterfoil of money orders which were returned have not been produced. The respondent has neither summoned the record of the postal authority to show that actually he has tendered the rent by way of money order which was refused by the respondent. The appellant has only produced the money order receipt (Exh. 18) which shows that he has sent money order pertaining to the rent of March, April, May and June, 1978 and the electricity charges, amounting to Rs, 540 in the month of June 1978, which was refused. He has also failed to examine any other witness to substantiate his allegation that he actually tendered the rent. He even before the Rent Controller has neither produced so-called certificate issued by the Assistant Postmaster nor produced any other document in support of his contention. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Muhammad Umer Daudi has cited PLD 1977 Kar. 211, where it has been held that it is well-settled that mere refusal of the landlord to accept the rent tendered on an earlier occasion does not absolve the tenant of his continued liability to pay or tender the same for each successive month. It has also been observed in the same case that there was no reason for the tenant/appellant not to pay or tender rent for each of the month as and when it fell due.
7. ' In a case Haji Ashrafuddin v. Sabir Hassain and another (2) it has been held that the liability to pay or tender the rent due remains on the tenant irrespective of higher amount demanded by the landlord.
8. ' In a case Mst. Iqbal Begun? And 4 others v. Mian Mazoorul Islam (3) their Lordships have observed that tender of rent also made after expiry of 60 days from the date when it fell due resulted in the petitioner becoming defaulter in the payment of rent.
9. ' In view of the above circumstances and the facts I am of the view that the learned Additional District Judge has rightly held that the appellant had committed default. 1, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Additional District Judge and dismiss the appeal.
(1) PLD 1976 Kar. 53 (2) 1973 SCMR 309
(3) 1968 SCMR 365 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.