1. This first rent appeal is directed against impugned order dated 20-.2-1984 of XIV Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby ejectment application filed as 15 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 has been dismissed.
2. Briefly related the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant Abdul Latif is landlord and respondent Munir Ahmed is tenant in respect of Flat No.4 in Latif Building situated on Plot No.3/6, S.R. 11 Arambagh, Qutram Road, Karachi on monthly rent of Rs.31.25 and there is no tenancy agreement in writing between the parties. An ejectment application was filed by the landlord on 12- 11-1981 on the ground of default alleging that the tenant had not paid rent since April 1981. In the written statement tenant took up the plea that there was no default and the landlord used to collect rent periodically in lump sums and the tenant offered to pay the rent but the landlord declined so money order was sent which was not accepted by the landlord, hence rent was deposited by the tenant in Rent Case No. 944 of 1982 on 1-3-1982. It was also stated in the written statement that previously landlord filed Rent Case No.1151/1972 against the tenant on the ground of default, which was subsequently withdrawn. Keeping in view the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed issue to the effect whether default was committed as alleged. In evidence landlord examined his attorney Bashir Ahmed and one other witness Muhammad Shahadat Khan. Latter witness deposed about subletting by the tenant but since no such plea was taken in the ejectment application filed by the landlord and no such issue was framed as such the learned Rent Controller did not give finding on that point. On the other hand tenant examined his attorney and brother Muhammad Shafi.
3. While attorney of the landlord was in box being cross-examined, he was confronted with six receipts showing that rent was accepted by the landlord in lump sum in past and the witness admitted the correctness and authenticity of six receipts. The receipts are described as under:---- "(1)Exh.4-B Rent accepted for 12 months. March 1980 to March 1981.
(2) Exh.4-C Rent accepted for 4 months. November 1979 to February 1980.
(3) Exh. 4-D Rent accepted for 6 months. May 1979 to October 1979.
(4) Exh.4-E Rent accepted for 4 months. January 1979 to April 1979.
(5) Exh. 4-F Rent accepted for 7 months. July 1978 to December 1978.
(6) Exh.4-G Rent accepted for 6 months. January 1978 to June 1978."
4. There is no dispute about the fact that on behalf of the landlord rent has been accepted in the past on six occasions as stated above. The question which arises for consideration is whether these six occasions are enough to say that the landlord was/is in habit of the accepting rent periodically and in lump sums. In the instant case it clearly appears that this practice was continued from January 1978 and there are two such occasions when rent was accepted for 12 months and 7 months respectively. On two such occasions rent was accepted for 6 months and on the other two occasions rent was accepted for 4 months. I am of the view that past conduct of the landlord which is proved by the six rent receipts is sufficient evidence in proof of assertion that landlord is in habit of accepting rent periodically. In this view I am fully supported by the case of Abdul Aziz v.
5. Abdul Ghani (19$6 SCMR 1857). If the landlord wanted this impression about past conduct to be erased, then he should have put tenant on notice or informed him that acceptance of rent in A the past in lump sums was an act of condonation and the same is not be treated as standard practice and rent has to be paid every month when it is due and failure of tenant in that context would make him liable to eviction, only then tenant would be deprived of this particular defence. In the instant case landlord does not claim to have done so.
6. For the facts and reasons stated above I hold that no default is committed. In the result impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
7. There will be no order .As to costs.