' Rent Case No,3637/77 was filed on 22-10-1977 by the respon dents/landlords for ejectment of the appellant/tenant from the shop in question on the ground of default in the payment of rent from March, 1977 to September, 1977. The application was resisted by the appellant who filed a written statement. Respondent No,1 appeared as sole witness for the respondents whereas the tenant gave evidence on his behalf. The case of the respondents was that the appellant was a tenant of the shop at a monthly rent of Rs,125 and that there was an agreement of tenancy, dated 25-9-1973 which acknowledged that an amount of Rs,2,000 had been paid by the appellant to the respondent as security deposit, refundable at the time of vacating the shop. Admittedly the agreement expired long ago. According to the respondents the rent had been paid up to October, 1975 by the appellant and thereafter rent was not paid but later on at the request of the appellant an amount of Rs,2,000 (security deposit) was adjusted towards the rent from November, 1975 till February, 1977, and as even thereafter rent had not been paid, ejectment application was filed in October, 1977 against the appellant. The Rent Controller, by his order, dated 29-5-1982 allowed the application and ordered ejectment of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court in First Rent Appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. 1 have heard Mr. Mustafa Lakhani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Zahiruddin who has appeared for the respondents.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/tenant that on the basis of the evidence on record a case for default in the payment of rent from March, 1977 had not been made out. According to the appellant, no rent receipt was issued and the receipt book containing counterfoils of receipts which included counterfoils relating to the shop in occupation of the appellant did not have the signatures of the appellant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there are 5 shops in the same building belonging to the respondents out of which one shop, subject-matter to the present appeal, is in occupation of the appellant whereas 4 other shops are in occupation of other tenants. It was contended that the burden of proving that rent had been paid had been discharged by the appellant and as no other tenant had been brought in evidence by the respondents to establish that rent receipts were being issued to the tenants by the respondents and as the counterfoils of rent receipts produced by the respondents did not have the signatures of the appellant, respondents had not been able to prove their case against the appellant for default. I had not been persuaded by the learned counsel for the appellant to accept the contentions raised by him. In the instant case there is the evidence A on behalf of the respondents that rent had not been paid and it is supported by receipt book, containing counterfoils of rent receipt issued to various tenants including the appellant. On the other hand, there is oral evidence of the appellant that he had paid rent up-to--date. In the facts of this case, the contention on the part of the appellant that rent receipts were not being issued and appellant had discharged the burden which had shifted to the appellant after the evidence o respondent No,1 and production of the counterfoils of rent receipts, cannot be accepted. if the case of Inc. appellant was that the respondent did not issue any receipt to any of the tenants in the building, one or more of the other tenants should have been called as witnesses. This was, however, not done. The defence of the appellant was further ,keened by the production of the receipt for Rs,2,000 for security deposit. Admittedly receipt for Rs,2,000 was issued by the respondents. If this is so, it is difficult to accept the contention of the appellant that no rent receipts were being issued. It has been noted that according to the appellant there are 5 shops in the building and it appears unnatural in the circumstances that all the 5 tenants were paying rent of shops, in which the tenants have valuable rights, and no rent receipts were being issued by the respondents/landlords.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon PLD 1980 SC 298 and 1981 CLC 656 for the proposition that if there is a security deposit which can be adjusted against the rent, the tenant should not be ejected on the ground of default if after adjustment of such security deposit there remains no default. These decisions do not help the case of the appellant as, according to the respondent's case, the amount of security deposit had been adjusted and it was after, adjustment of the entire security deposit of Rs,2,000 that rent was due' from March, 1977 and the ejectment case was filed on 22-10-1977.
4. 1 find no merits in this appeal. F.R.A. No,804 of 1982 is dismissed, but 'with no order as to costs.
Time, however, is granted till 31-12-1983 to the appellant to vacate the premises subject to payment of rent.