' This appeal has arisen out of the ejectment order issued by VIlth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, on 30th March, 1982. There is no dispute in respect of the rate of rent which is 452 per month. The ejectment of the appellant had been sought by the respondent on the ground that there was default in payment of rent and the appellant had made himself a nuisance.
' The appellant resisted the said application and submitted that there was no default in the payment of rent. He also denied that he was a nuisance.
2. The issues of default in payment of rent and nuisance created by the appellant were framed.
' The issue of nuisance was decided in favour of the appellant and hence the same is concluded as there is no cross appeal.
' In respect of the default in the payment of rent is concerned, the finding of the Rent Controller is based on the agreement, dated 28-8-1973 by which the rent was to be paid on the first Sunday of the next month. On this basis, the Rent Controller has found that rent of September, 1974 to July, 1975 was not paid within time.
3. Application for ejectment was filed on 26th August.
1975. And the mutual tenancy agreement had come to an end in July, 1974, therefore the rent should have been paid within sixty days from the date when the same had become due. The rent of September, 1974 to April, 1975. Has been deposited within sixty days of the time when the rent had become due and, therefore, there was no default committed by the appellant for this period.
The view of the Rent Controller that rent should have been deposited on the first Sunday of the next month is evidently incorrect because statutory tenancy had come into existence from July, 1974 onwards. It is only the rent of May, 1975 which appears to have been deposited one day late as it was deposited on 31-7-1975. The rent for June, 1975 in fact became due only on 29th August, 1975 but before that the present ejectment application had been filed on 21-6-1975.
4. The rent of June, 1975 was deposited admittedly on 8-9-1975 as shown in Exh. 6 which is signed by the Advocate for the applicant. This Exh. 6 is the copy of the bank book of the applicant which shows the various deposits made at the various time. The same has not been controverted in any manner by the appellant and, therefore, this clearly shows that the rent of June, 1975 was deposited on 8-9-1975 i.e, about ten days after 29-8-1975 when the rent of June should have been deposited. Similarly the rent of July, 1975 is shown to be deposited on 15-10-1975 and the same is again showing a default of about 16 days in the deposit of rent as 29th September was the last date for deposit of rent of July, 1975.
5. The net result is that there was one day's default in the payment of rent of May, 1975 as it was deposited on the 61st day of the due date, namely, on 31-7-1975. Thereafter the rent of June and July, 1975 has been deposited quite late.
6. Since there was a discretion allowed under section 13 (2) of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, therefore, one day's delay in the payment of rent for May, 1975 could have been condoned by Rent Controller. And I would have myself exercised that discretion in favour of the appellant if this was the only default committed by him.
7. We are then left with the defaults in the payment of rent for June, and July, 1975. It is admitted position that on the day of this application, namely 26-8-1975, there was no default in the payment of rent of June, 1975 as the same could have been paid by 29-8-1975 and so also rent of July, could have been paid by 29th September, 1975 and, therefore, it appears that the application based on default was prematurely filed as far as the default of June and July, 1975 was concerned. However, it is an undeniable and undoubted position that rents for June and July, 1975 have been paid beyond a reasonable time by the appellant and during the pendency of this application the time for the payment of the rent of June and July, 1975 had become due and had passed without a proper payment. Therefore, the question is whether this appeal should be allowed on the basis that the rent of June and July, 1975 had not become due. However, the position is that the respondent had clearly taken up the position in the application that the rent of June and July, 1975 had not been paid within time. Of course, his stand was wrong that it should have been paid within a week of the due date of rent as by that time statutory tenancy had arisen but the difficulty is that during the pendency of the application the rent of June and July,1975 became due and was not paid in time. And therefore, the cause of action matured during the pendency of the application and the appellant had clear notice of the same but he did nothing to prove that there had been any payment within time.
8. In fact, it is an admitted position that there was a clear default of ten days in the payment of rent of June, 1975 and sixteen days in the payment of rent of July, 1975. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show me any case & law that rent which had been in arrears for so long should be condoned. On the other hand, Mr. Javed Reza had relied upon PLD 1978 SC 220, where it was held that if the cause of action has matured during the pendency of the application the Court could take note of subsequent events in order to suitably would relief on basis of altered circumstances. It was also observed that the Courts should avoid multiplicity of proceedings and should shorten litigation and in order to do complete justice between the parties they should would relief according to altered circumstances in larger interest of justice.
9. With respect I follow the above cited view and consequently I find that the respondent had proved that the rent of June and July, 1975 had become in arrears during the pendency of the ejectment application and since he had sought the ejectment of the appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent up to July, and, therefore, the Rent Controller was justified in taking the default in the payment of rent of June and July, 1975 into consideration. Of course, it is needless to say that the Rent Controller's approach was not justified. However, even on the basis of the correct approach that rent could have been paid within sixty days of the date of payment. I have found that default in the payment of rent of June and July, 1975 as well as of May, 1975 is clearly proved.
Hence I maintain the order of ejectment and dismiss this appeal. There is no justification for exercise of discretion in favour of appellant in view of long default.
10. However, in view of the fact that, alternate accommodation for residence is quite difficult to get I accept the request of the appellant's counsel and allow six months time for ejectment from the premises subject to the condition that the appellant will continue to deposit the rent regularly.
11. It is, however, stipulated that after the expiry of six months from today direct writ of possession without notice will be issued against the appellant, or even earlier, if the appellant fails to deposit the rent of any month.
This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
12. Mr. Javed Raza has graciously agreed to allow appellant six months time, for ejectment.