1. ' This is a rent appeal filed under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, by the appellant, who is a tenant of the respondent/landlady in respect of tenement No.9 situated in the respondent's building known as "Haji Muhammad Ali Building" on plot No.RC 4/110-111, Mauji Street, Ranchore Lines, Karachi, at a monthly rent of Rs.40. The first ejectment application No. RC No.4941/76 was filed by the respondent against the appellant for her ejectment on the ground of default. In that ejectment application ground of personal requirement was not taken. During the pendency of the previous ejectment application, a second Rent Case No. 787 of 1978 also was filed by the respondent against the appellant in respect of the same premises on the ground, of default and personal requirement of the respondent. Rent Case No.4941/76 was dismissed on 30-11-1983.
2. However, in the second rent case, by order dated 22-3-1983, ejectment of the appellant had been ordered on the ground of personal requirement. Finding on the ground of default was against the landlady. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the rent appeal under section 21 of the 1979 Rent Ordinance against the respondent. During the arguments I felt the necessity of holding an inquiry under section 21(3) of the 1979 Sind Rented Premises Ordinance and it was, therefore, directed by my order dated 7-11-1984 that both the parties should be present and the respondent was directed to bring all the rent receipt books in respect of all the properties owned by her and which have been acquired by her and which have come to her share or inherited by her after the death of her husband. Respondent was also directed to bring list of all the tenements and the names of all the tenants in all the properties owned by her or which have come to her share or inherited by her after the death of her husband. I recorded the statement of the respondent on 27-11-1984 as Exh. "R".
3. During her statement, the respondent produced a list of tenants as Exh. t3/1. This list shows that according to the respondent she owns four properties and one other building described in List Exh.
4. R/1 as a trust building but in her statement recorded by me she stated that this building RC-4/122 belonged to her father and she was the only daughter of her father and after his death, this building i.e. building RC-4/122 came to her share. It, therefore, follows that according to the respondent all the five buildings mentioned in Exh. R/1 belong to her. According to this list, there are 43 tenements in the five buildings. Admittedly, husband of the respondent died a few years ago and he has alsb left some properties and the respondent as his wife must be having a share in the properties left by the deceased husband. The respondent had also been directed to bring the rent receipt books of all the properties owned by her. Some receipt books, in which counterfoils of the receipts were available, were brought on 27-11-1984 but these counterfoils related to the period from April, 1983 onwards. The respondent was directed that on the next date the counterfoils of all the receipts since January, 1976 of all the properties owned by the respondent be produced in Court for inspection. Today, when the matter was taken up and learned counsel for the respondent was asked to produce the counterfoils of receipts issued by the respondent in respect of all the five properties w.e.f. January, 1976, learned counsel stated that receipts prior to April, 1983 are not available. A statement to that effect in writing has also been filed by Mr. Akhtar Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent. It is apparent from the conduct of the respondent that she does not want to produce counterfoils of all the receipts issued by her in respect of all the properties for the period prior to 1983. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In the enquiry conducted by me under section 21(3) of the 1979 Rent Ordinance, it is now an admitted position that at least five buildings are owned by the respondent in which there are 43 tenements. I have perused the ejectment application and I find that in the ejectment application the respondent has not disclosed that she owns five buildings which contains about 43 tenements.
5. In the enquiry held by me the respondent has withheld the counterfoils of receipts issued by her for the period prior to April, 1983. An allegation had been made that several tenements were vacated by the tenants and fresh tenants were inducted by the respondent in such tenements. The purpose of requiring the respondent to produce the counterfoils of receipts for the period from January, 1976 onwards was to see whether any tenant had vacated any of the various tenements owned by the respondent. As observed earlier, counterfoils of receipts for the period prior to April, 1983, have not been produced and have been withheld by the respondent on the ground that they are not available. It does not stand to reason that an owner of five building comprising about 43 tenements, who maintains printed rent receipts books and issues regular receipts and also keeps counterfoils, would misplace all the receipts books of all the buildings for the period prior to April, 1983. The only reason for not producing such counterfoils appear to be that in case such counterfoils had been produced these would have shown that several tenants had changed hands during the period from 1976 to 1983. The bona fides of the respondent for requiring the single room tenement in occupation of the appellant have, therefore not been established. This appeal is, therefore, to be allowed.
6. ' F.R.A. No. 372 of 1983 is allowed and the order, dated 22-3-1983 of the Rent Controller in Rent Case No. 787 of 1978 is set aside. The appellant will also be entitled to costs.