' The appellant is tenant of the respondent on the ground-floor of a house situated on Plot No. 0.T.8/16, Old Town, Karachi at Rs.30 per month. The respondent filed an ejectment application against him on the ground that he was habitual defaulter and that on 23-1-1982 he was in arrears for eight months. Hence she filed ejectment application before XIV Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi.
2. The plea of the appellant was that he paid rent to the respondent whenever she or her man came to collect the same and that it was the practice of the respondent to collect rent after intervals of four to six months. He has also pleaded that rent for seven months was remitted to the respondent by money order which was refused. Hence he started depositing rent in the Court of Rent Controller in Misc. Rent Case No. 5055/1981.
3. In support of her case the respondent examined her attorney Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan, who filed his affidavit to the effect that the appellant is a habitual defaulter and that he did not pay rent from 1-4-1981 upto the date of filing the. rent application i.e. 23-1-1982. He denied that any Money Order was received by the respondent.
4. In rebuttal the appellant has filed affidavits of his witnesses Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Suleman and Haroon, who have deposed that the practice of the landlady had been to collect rent in lump sum, after interval of four to six months. D.W. Muhammad Amin who is son of the appellant has also produced money order coupo,n showing that rent for seven months was remitted by Money Order in November, 1981. The note of the appellant at the foot of the coupon is very relevant which is reproduced as under:[URDU TEXT]
5. From the very admission of the appellant in his written statement it is proved that he used to pay rent after intervals of four to six months. This admission by itself is sufficient to prove that the appellant is a defaulter. Even if it is admitted that the landlady had tolerated accepting rent at intervals of four to six months it would not absolve the tenant of his responsibility of paying rent each month. Reference in this connection has been made by learned counsel for the respondent to a decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Rashid v. Saleh Muhammad 1980 SCMR 506. In the above case the Supreme Court observed as under:-- "The mere fact that a tenant has made it a habit not to pay therent regularly every month, and that the landlord has tolerated his default for some time and accepted the rent paid at irregular intervals cannot in any way, be deemed to have established a practice of payment of rent whenever the tenant pleases or affect the liability of the tenant to pay the rent unless the landlord comes and collects it. Nor does it absolve the tenant from paying the rent every month. A landlord's acceptance of the rent paid to him at irregular intervals does not in any way, show that he does not expect it to be paid regularly every month, as the reason for receiving the delayed payment might be his decency, his desire to accommodate his tenant, his pre-occupation with his own work, his hesitation to go to Courts of law or his reluctance to incur the expenses and hazards of his litigation. The tenant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own negligence or of his having of deliberate non-payment of rent in time every month on the ground that the landlord has been accepting the same and argue that the same had given rise to a practice of irregular payment of rent."
' In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the appellant is proved to be a defaulter. I, therefore, do not find any substance in this appeal which is dismissed. The appellant is, however, given four months time to vacate the premises.