' Ejectment Case No, 4114/80 was filed by the respondent/landlady for the ejectment of the appellant from the premises in question on the ground of default in the payment of rent with effect from February, 1980 and on the ground of personal requirement. The ejectment application was filed on 20th June, 1980. Ejectment was ordered by the Rent Controller by his order, dated 16th November, .1982 on the ground of default only. On the question of personal requirement, the finding of the Rent Controller is that the respondent was not able to make out a case. Being aggrieved, the appellant/tenant has filed this First Rent Appeal under section 21 of the 1979 Rent Ordinance. I have heard Mr. S. Nasiruddin, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Raja Shamsuzzaman, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. From the evidence on record it has been established that rent from February, to August, 1980 was paid through money order by the appellant to the respondent. The case of the appellant in his written statement in paragraph 3 was that the appellant had been paying monthly rent regularly in time and as she refused to issue receipt the appellant started paying the rent by money order with effect from February, 1980 and that all the money orders were received by Najma Parveen on behalf of the respondent. The case set up by the appellant in his written statement, therefore, is that with effect from February. 1980 the respondent refused to issue rent receipt and as such the appellant started sending rent through money orders. However, a different version is given by the appellant in his evidence before the Rent Controller. He states in his cross-examination that the rent for the month of February, 1980 was received by the respondent from him but after March, 1978 the respondent started collecting the rent from the appellant from his shop and then the respondent refunded rent already collected by her and, therefore, the rent was sent through money order upto August, 1978. There is an apparent conflict in the two versions of the appellant. In the cross examination he does not say that rent was refused by the respondent after February, 1980. According to the paragraph 3 of the written statement as already noted, when she refused to issue rent receipts, the appellant started to send the rent through money order to the respondent with effect from February, 1980. Admittedly the rent from February, upto August, 1980 was tendered by the appellant after the filing of the ejectment application. On the state of the evidence on record and the apparent conflict between earlier version of the appellant given in the A written statement and the later version of the appellant in his evidence before the Rent Controller, the respondent had established a case of wilful default against the appellant. The finding of the Rent Controller is based on evidence and is not liable to be set aside.
' As a result F. R. A. No, 1190/82 is dismissed but with no order as to costs. The appellant is however, granted time till 31st August, 1984 to vacate the premises subject to however payment of rent.