1. ' This first appeal under section 15 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) is filed by the tenant and is directed against the order dated 30-9-1984 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Controller, Quetta in Eviction Application No, 130 of 1982 whereby the appellant has been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the house bearing Municipal No, 7-22/57 situate on Haji Qadam All Road, Nichari, Quetta within three months of the order and arises in the following circumstances :- ' That an eviction application which was registered as No, 130 of 1982 was filed by Fazal Khan (Respondent herein) and it was alleged therein that the house No 7-22/57 originally belonged to his grand father Haji Umeed Khan who has let out the same to the appellant (Mujeeb Ahmed Ansari). Later the house fell to the share of his father who finally transferred the same to the respondent and the transaction was witnessed in the Revenue Record through Mutation made in favour of Fazal Khan on 5-4-1982. A notice to the tenant was thereafter issued in April, 1982 intimating him that the property/house .Had been transferred to Fazal Khan and henceforth the tenant has to pay rent to him (respondent herein). This notice was received by the tenant and reply was also made through his advocate. Since some facts were introduced in the reply which had no bearing on the case, the objections were removed by the subsequent notice dated 7-10- 1982 and the appellant was called upon once again to clear the rent w. e. f. 5-4-1982 (the date of transfer of the house) to the respondent. This notice though was received by the appellant but no rent was paid.
2. ' An eviction application was thus filed on 13-11-1982 and besides the default of rent for seven months at Rupees forty, the personal and bona fide requirement was pleaded and it was stated that he is residing in the house of his brother which has not the enough aeeommodation as be intends to marry and has already been engaged.
3. ' The appellant in his rejoinder to the eviction application denied the allegations of default and pleaded that he had tendered rent but the rent was not accepted as such the same was remitted through money order but it was also refused ultimately the rent was tendered in Court. It was pleaded that considerable amount had been spent by him in repairs with the permission of the landlord and this amount he is entitled to be re-imbursed. The claim of personal use and occupation was also termed as mala fide. The Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues :-
(1) Whether the respondent has failed to pay the rent from April, 1982?
(2) Whether the applicant reasonably requires premises in question for his personal bona fide use and occupation ?
(3) Whether the respondent has spent Rs, 12000 on repairs of the house in question with permission of the previous landlords, if so, to what effect ?
(4) Relief ?
4. ' The parties led the evidence and after scrutinizing the same the Controller found that the issue No, 1 was proved. The requirement of the landlord applicant was found bona fide and established.
5. About the issue No, 3 it was observed that the appellant has not been able to establish that any expenditure on repairs of the house was made with the permission as alleged by the tenant/appellant as no permission had been produced. I he eviction was therefore ordered on 30- 9-1984 and the appellant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the house to the landlord (respondent herein) within three months.
6. ' The appellant has assailed this order and the learned counsel for the appellant has urged the following grounds :-
(a) That the notice dated 7-10-1982 was received on 14-12-1982 and on receipt thereof the rent was offered but was refused and thereafter sent through money order and ultimately tendered in Court.
(b) That the notice as alleged in the eviction application does not conform to the requirements of the provisions of section 13-A of the Ordinance.
(c) That the expenditure incurred by the tenant was adjustable towards rent and thus no rent was in arrears.
(d) The issue of personal and bona fide requirement was not proved and since the previous landlord had previously filed eviction applications, the present eviction is motivated with the same desire and in fact the tenant is being pressurized for enhancement of rent. It has been asserted that the marriage is not established.
7. ' With the help of the learned counsel of the parties the entire evidence has been read in Court. The assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant that the notice dated 7-10-1982 was received on 14-12-1982 is found to be false. The photocopy of the notice dated 740-1982 filed alongwith this appeal contains an endorsement that it was received on 9-10-1982 and this stands to reason because the notice sent through local post could easily be delivered with in two days in Quetta.
8. When the learned counsel was confronted by me to the endorsement "Received on 9-10-1982 at 12.00 hours" the counsel was nonplus and had no reply.
9. The notice dated 7-10-1982 refers to a previous notice which as per statement of the advocate examined by the tenant (R. W. 3) was replied. The fact of transfer of the property/house has not been disputed. The demand of rent with effect from 5-4-1982 therefore, is justified and the same was repeated once again on 7-10-1982. This certainly conforms to the requirement of the provisions contained in section 13-A of the Ordinance. Admittedly the rent was not paid within the period prescribed under section 13-A and the eviction application and thus a valid cause of action.
10. The rent paid or tendered in Dezember, 1982 therefore, does not absolve the liability which the tenant has already incurred. The payment in Court therefore is of no avail. In the face of the facts brought on record the plea advanced by the learned counsel is not bona fide and is nothing but a faint attempt to justify the default and this act of the tenant does not justify any indusence or discretion in his favour.
11. The evidence produced by the tenant does not establish that in fact any' repair was carried out with the permission of the landlords. No such permission is brought on record. The previous landlords appeared in Court but no question was put to them that any enhancement in rent was demanded. The amount demanded by the appellant as re-imbursement or adjustment is fluctuating. In the reply to the notice it was claimed as Rs, 10,000 later in the written statement it was raised to Rs, 22,000 and ultimately in the statement recorded in Court it has been further increased to Rs, 33030 and that too without any basis arid justification. The statement of the tenant/appellant does not inspire any confidence and is not worthy of any serious notice.
12. The fact that the landlord is a young man of about 26 years, now his natural desire to marry cannot be denied to him. The landlord is presently residing in the licensed accommodation. I find no reason to differ with the learned Controller who had the occasion to see the demeanour of the witnesses produced before him.
13. ' For the above reasons I find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed with cost.
14. ' These are the reasons for my short order recorded on 13-8-1985 at the close of the arguments.