1. ' This First Rent Appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by the appellant/landlord against the Order of Rent Controller dated 25-1-1984 whereby he rejected the rent application instituted by the appellant on the ground of default.
2. ' The default in the rent application which was filed on 17-7-1977 is alleged from 1st of April, 1977 to 30th June, 1977. The respondent/ tenant in his written statement before the Rent Controller took the defence that there was no default on his part as appellant himself used to collect the rent periodically after expiry of 3/4 months together. The appellant in his evidence before the Rent Controller denied the allegation of the respondent that he used to collect the rent periodically and asserted that as the respondent did not pay rent every month he had no option but to collect the rent as and when offered by him. The respondent on the other hand in his evidence stated that the rent was being collected by the appellant periodically and in support of his contention he produced four rent receipts Exhs. 7/1 to 7/4 to show that the rent was being collected by the appellant not every month but in lump sum together. The receipts relied by the respondent before the Rent Controller are as follows: Exh.711 dated 3-4-1970 for Rs,90 for the period January, February and March, 1977.
3. Exh.7/2 dated 10-4-1976 for January, February and. March, 1976.
4. Exh.7/3 dated 7-11-1976 for September and October, 1976.
5. Exh.7/4 dated 4-1-1977 for November and December, 1976.
6. ' The Rent Controller on the basis of the above documentary as well as oral evidence produced in the case came to the conclusion that the rent was not payable every month and accordingly rejected the rent application filed by the appellant. I have heard the learned counsel for parties at length and after hearing them I am of the view that the order of the Rent Controller cannot be sustained in law. The above rent receipts relied by the respondent before the Rent Controller only show irregular payment of rent and they are not so consistent so as to give rise to a presumption that the statutory obligation of the tenant stood modified as a result of this practice. It will be seen that for the year 1977 only two receipts were produced which are dated 4-1-1977 and 3-4-1977 which show payment of rent at a time for two months and three months respectively. Similarly for the year 1976 there were produced only two receipts to show twice payment of rent, once for two months and the other for three months. Such irregular practice of payment of rent could not give rise to presumption that there was a consistent practice followed by the landlord which had the effect of modifying the statutory obligation of a tenant under the law. It is not disputed that under the law a tenant is bound to tender rent every month as and when it becomes due and if the same is not tendered within 60 days of the same becoming due and payable the default takes place. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the cases of Muhammad Usman v. Fazal Karim 1981 CLC 104; Muhammad Younus v. Dr. S.Muzammil All 1981 CLC 327; Dr. Sakina Tapal v. Mst.
7. Rashida Bano 1981 CLC 656 and Fazal Ahmed and another v. Muhammad Abdul Shakoor 1981 CLC 798 to contend that where the landlord recovered rent at different interval no order of ejectment could be passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of default in payment of rent as in such cases by following such practice the landlord shall be deemed to have created impression on the tenant that the rent will be collected periodically and even if the default has taken place it could not be termed as deliberate and wilful in such circumstances. Apart from the fact that the above- cited cases are distinguishable on facts, the law laid down by the Supreme Court recently in this behalf is reported in the case of MRs, Alima Ahmed v. Amir Ali PLD 1984 SC 32. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the above referred case this argument is hardly now available to a tenant that as the rent was being recovered periodically by the landlord the tenant was not to be deemed to have defaulted in payment of rent within the meaning of Rent Restriction Laws. The Rent Controller was, therefore, in error in holding that the aforesaid payment relied by the respondent amounted to relieving the tenants from the statutory liability to tender rent every month. I accordingly reverse the finding of the Rent Controller and grant the ejectment application. There will, however, be no order as to costs. The respondent is allowed six months' time to vacate the premises on the condition that he shall continue to deposit monthly rent as directed by the Rent Controller during the aforesaid period.