' This appeal is directed against the order of IVth Rent controller, West Karachi dated 10-7-1986 whereby he allowed the application of the respondent and directed the appellant to vacate he premises in dispute within 60 days.
2. The case of the respondent is that he is owner and landlady of the disputed premises. The same was let out to the appellant at Rs,700/- per month. The appellant has failed to pay a monthly rent.
He had tendered a cheque to the respondent on 10-7-1982 towards the rent of June 1982 but the same was dishonoured by the Bank. The appellant failed to pay monthly rent for June, July and August 1982 in spite of repeated demands. The respondent had also requested for. Ejectment On the ground of bona fide personal use of the disputed premises as the accommodation in her possession at present consists of two rooms and oae hall and a small room which is quite insufficient and inadequate for the requirement of her children. She has further alleged that she has two sons who were studying in Medical and pre-medical classes. The third son is studying in X Class. Her other children are also studying in primary and secondary classes. Hence the prayer for ejectment.
3: The appellant admitted relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as well as date of rent except that according to him it was the respondent's husband Shabihur Rehman who was the landlord originally and that the respondent subsequently became owner. He has alleged that he was always regular in payment of rent. He has further stated that the dishonouring of the first cheque was managed by the respondent whereas the subsequent cheque for the month of July was not presented for encashment, and the cheque for August 1982, was not accepted by the respondent on the ground that an ejectment application had been filed with regard to the personal requirement of the respondent the appellant has submitted that the accommodation presently in occupation of the respondent is quite sufficient for the needs of her family members.
4. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controllertook up the following issues for consideration:-
(1) Whether the present application is not maintainable as alleged?
(2) Whether the opponent has comitted default in payment of monthly rent?
(3) Whether the tenement' in question is- bona fidely required by the applicants for the use of herself and for the use and occupation of her children?
(4) What should the order be?
5. The learned Rent Controller decided all the issues in favour of the respondent and allowed the application as shown above. The respondent has produced a rent note executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent dated 28-3-1974. A cheque of an amount of Rs, 700/- was also issued in her favour. From the above admitted documents it is quite clear that the respondent was the landlady of the appellant with respect to the premises in question and his plea that her husband was the landlord does not held any water.
6. On the point of default also the finding of the learned Rent Controller is based on strong evidence such as tender of rent by a cheque which was dishonoured and the failure of the appellant to produce any receipt or any other documents, evidencing the payment of rent for the months of June, July and August before 10th of succeeding month. Even the counterfoils of the two cheques subsequently tendered to the respondent have not been produced.
' The rent for the months June, July and August, which was sent subsequently by three money orders, all of which dated 15-9-1982 in themselves, shows that the appellant was in clear default of payment of rent, even if it is considered that he was not bound to pay rent on 7th of every calendar month and was entitled to 60 days' time. The receipt of Nazir shows that the first deposit in Court was made by the appellant on 5-11-1983 which was hopelessly beyond the due date and also was after the filing of this application.
7. Even on the point of requirement of the premises for persona use the finding of the learned Rent Controller, that the premises in occupation of the respondent were insufficient for their needs and that they require the house in occupation of the appellant for bon fide use of her children, is unexceptionable and is based on sufficient evidence and is supported by the settled law on the point.
8. I therefore do not find any merit in this appeal and therefore dismiss the same.