1. ' This appeal has been filed under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 by the tenants. Rent Case No,2731 of 1972 was filed on 23-11-1972 by the respondent Trust for the ejectment of Tahir Muhammad Shafi on the ground of default in the payment of rent with effect from July, 1972. Rent was claimed at Rs,150 per month. The tenant Tahir Muhammad Shafi filed a written statement .resisting the ejectment application and claiming that rent was Rs,50 per month and not Rs,150 per month. In para 2 of the Written Statement the defense taken by the tenant was as follows:- "The correct facts are that the previous tenant was paying rent at the rate of Rs,32 per month. The applicants have admitted the opponent as tenant at the rate of Rs,50 per month and accordingly the opponent had paid a sum of Rs,150 as advance for three months but the receipt was issued only for one month. Thereafter the opponent sent a money order but the same was refused. The applicant (tenant) therefore filed a miscellaneous application in the Court and deposited the rent in the Court. The opponent also filed an application for fixation of rent which is pending in the Court."
2. ' The respondents examined one Bihari Lai, their rent collector and attorney, whereas the tenant examined himself in evidence. By the impugned order, dated 12-4-1980 the learned Rent Controller determined the rent at Rs,150 per month and held the tenant to be defaulter and as a result ejectment application was allowed. The tenant has filed this appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, the tenant died and his legal heirs have brought on record as appellants. I have heard Mr.Nurud din N.Ramzen, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Ahmed AU Memon, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. It was first contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties before the learned Rent Controller it had not been established that the agreed rate of rent was Rs,150 per month. According to the learned counsel the rate of rent was Rs,50 per month and on 25-5-1972 Rs,150 had been paid in cash by the appellants to the respondent which was rent for three months that in June, July, and August, 1972 at the rate of Rs,50 per month but the respondent's representative fraudulently made a receipt showing the rent at Rs,150 per month and the receipt was made out only for the month of June, 1972. Although the counterfoil of the receipt produced by the witness of the respondent does not bear the signatures of the tenant, the tenant in his evidence admitted that the receipt was issued and it was made out for one month and showing the rent of Rs,150 for the month of June, 1972 having been paid by the tenant to the Trust. The position that emerges from the evidence therefore is that there is word against word as regards the quantum of rate with attorney of the respondent claiming rent Rs,150 per month and the tenant claiming the rent to be Rs,50 per month. However, in view of the admission of the tenant in his evidence that the receipt of Rs,150 for the month of June, 1972 only was issued by the respondent's representative and that receipt had been received by the tenant, the receipt dated 25-5-1972 becomes an admitted document and this documentary evidence tilts the scale in favour of the respondent as regards the rate of rent. Learned counsel for the appellants had argued that no reliance should be placed on this receipt as in fact Rs,150 had been paid by the tenant to the respondent as three months rent at the rate of Rs, 50 per month. I find no substance in this contention. From the evidence on record it is apparent that the receipt in question had been given to the tenant on 25-5-1972 which is the date of the receipt and that the fact of the representative of the respondents writing on the receipt that it was rent for June, 1972 only also came to the knowledge of the tenant at the same time. In his evidence the tenant has stated as follows:- "1 had given Rs,150 as rent to the applicant in advance in the first beginning of the tenancy. When the applicant issued the rent receipt and in the receipt the applicant has written Rs,150 as one month rent. I have objected on this receipt but the applicant did not correct the same receipt.
3. Thereafter I deposit the rent in Court."
4. ' From the evidence of the tenant it stands confirmed that immediately the receipt was handed over to the tenant he became aware that the receipt was for one month and it was at the rate of fRs,150 per month. However, no action is taken by the appellants till September, 1982 when he filed the miscellaneous rent case and an application for fixation of the rent. If the agreed rent was Rs,50 per month, and on payment of three months' rent amounting to Rs,150, a receipt was given by the landlord which had shown the rent to be Rs,150 per month and the receipt was made out for one month's rent, and the tenant had become aware immediately about this, the natural reaction of the tenant would have been to raise objection, give a notice or go to the Court immediately or within a reasonable time. Sitting quiet for more than three months, in the circumstances appears to be an unnatural and unreasonable behavior on the part of the tenant. On the basis of the oral testimony confirmed by the admitted receipt dated 25-5-1972, in A my view a correct finding as reached by the Rent Controller that the agreed rate of rent was Rs,150 per month and not Rs,50 per month.
5. 3.As regards the question of default, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that money order had been sent by the appellants at the rate of Rs,50 per month which shows the bona fide of the appellants. I find no reference in the evidence of the appellants about the money order.
6. The money order or its coupon was not produced in evidence. In the memo of appeal filed in this Court also I find no reference about the sending of the money order. There being no evidence on record about the sending of the money order, there is no substance in this argument of the learned counsel.
4. It was further argued that a sum of Rs,300 had been deposited the miscellaneous rent case. I find no reference having been made bout the deposit of Rs,300 in advance by the tenant and then no round has been taken in the memo of appeal that there was evidence regarding the payment of Rs,300 which has not been taken into consideration by the learned Rent Controller.
7. 5.The findings of the Rent Controller that the rent is Rs,150 per month and that the tenant had defaulted in the payment of rent are supported by the evidence on recut]. I find no ground to interfere it the impugned order.
8. ' F.R.A.No,425/80 is dismissed but with no order as to costs.
9. ' With the consent of Mr. Ahmed Ali Memon, learned counsel for the respondent, time is granted till 31-12-1984 to the appellants to vacate the premises in question.