1. ' This is an appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979).
2. The facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant is a tenant of the respondent in respect of residential premises on rent at the rate of Rs.16 per month. The respondent filed an application for ejectment of the appellant on 29-11-1979 on the ground of default in payment of rent from 1-4-1977 to 31-10-1979. After recording parties' evidence the learned VIIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller allowed the application with costs, ordering the appellant to vacate the premises within two months by his order dated 11-3-1982. Against this order the appellant has filed this appeal.
3. ' I have heard Mr. S.M. Gharib Nawaz learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Zafar Alam Khan learned counsel for the respondents.
4. ' Mr. S.M. Gharib Nawaz contended that although the appellant has not controverted the factual position about the non-payment of the rent due with effect from 1-4-1977 but the respondent's attorney had himself told him that he will collect the rent in lump sum. It was, therefore, submitted by him that the appellant had remitted the rent due by money order, which was refused by the respondent's attorney. He also referred to the evidence of his witness Exh. 7 who deposed to have gone with the appellant to the respondent's attorney several times to pay the rent.
5. ' I find no force in these submissions. The evidence adduced by the appellant is falsified by the production of two receipts (Ex. E & F) and their counterfoil at pages 31 and 33 of the lower Court's file. In the receipt dated 30-11-1976 it has been specifically undertaken by the appellant, under his own signature, that there is rent due against him from 1-10-1976 to 30-11-1976 which will be paid by him within two months and that he will pay the rent in future regularly on 5th of every month. This receipt is duly signed by the appellant. It has been denied. The money order (Ex. 6-D) was evidently sent on 29-11-1979, the day when the application was filed.
6. ' The evidence of the appellant and his witness has been rightly disbelieved by the learned Rent Controller. The witness who alleges to have accompanied the appellant on a number of times to pay the rent does not state any thing as to the time or amount of rent. He may not be knowing the amount of rent or the period for which the rent was due, as Mr. S.M. Gharib Nawaz asserted, but witness should at least know about the various dates, if not exact, at least approximately the week or month, in which he allegedly accompanied the appellant, about which he simply says "I do not remember."
7. ' On the facts that have come on record, I am satisfied that there was no practice between the parties to pay the rent in lump sum. Even otherwise, it is an established law that the said practice, if any, would not alter the liability to pay the rent as required by law. The appellant has, therefore, been rightly held as wilful defaulter.
8. ' Mr. Gharib Nawaz lastly contended that the application for ejectment was allowed, "with costs" which is not legal under section 17 of the Ordinance. Mr. Zafar Alam learned counsel for the respondent concedes that the costs of the application could not be allowed by the learned Rent Controller.
9. ' For reasons discussed above, I dismiss this appeal with this modification of the order in this appeal that the application will be deemed to have been allowed without any order as to costs.
10. The appellant is, therefore, directed to vacate the premises within two months from today, failing which he will be liable to be ejected without notice, subject to depositing of rent.