ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners, who are successors-in-interest of Muhammad Umer, from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court, dated 24-3-1986, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, Hyderabad, dated 16-7- 1985, was maintained qua their ejectment from the suit shop.
2. The facts in brief, are that the petitioners are in occupation of a shop bearing No.D/840-B, situate at Fort Chowrangi, Hyderabad, as tenants on payment of rent of Rs.70 per mensem fixed through an agreement. As the petitioners failed to pay the rent of the suit shop, an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance for the ejectment of the petitioners was filed on the grounds of default in the payment of rent, with effect from 1-9-1963, impairing the value and utility of the suit shop and bona fide personal requirement. The petitioners denied all the allegations. The pleadings resulted in the framing of as many as seven issues. Before the Rent Controller and the High Court issues 1 and 3 were taken up. They are:
(1) Whether opponents are wilful defaulters in payment of the rent to the applicant? And
(2) Whether the rent of the premises in question is legal and proper? After recording the evidence, the learned Rent Controller decided issue No. l in favour of the respondent by holding that the petitioners had not been able to bring any cogent evidence that they had paid the rent till June, 1964. He further held that no evidence had been brought on the question of repairs carried out by the petitioners with permission of the landlord and its adjustment towards the rent. The petitioners were thus, held to be wilful defaulters. While deciding issue No.3, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the rent of the premises was Rs.45 per mensem. As a result of his finding on issue No. l, the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the petitioners. On appeal, the High Court upheld the finding of the Rent Controller, dismissed the appeal and allowed a period of six months to the petitioners to hand over the vacant possession of the suit shop.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the judgments of the Courts below and we are of the view that the findings arrived at are unexceptionable. No evidence worth the name has been brought on the record by the petitioners that the rent of the suit shop was lesser (Rs.20 per month) than the one fixed by the learned Rent Controller. Similarly there is no evidence on the A record that the petitioners had carried out the repairs of the suit shop with the consent of the owner and that the amount so spent had to be adjusted towards the rent. Default in the payment of rent has also been established. Thus, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.