1. ' This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is directed against order dated 24-9-1989, passed by learned VIth Rent Controller, Karachi, South, whereby, he directed appellant to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to respondent within 60 days from the date of said order. The facts relevant for decision of this appeal are as follows:- ' Respondent Mst. Marrium Bai, on 22-1-1985, filed eviction application against appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent, making addition and alteration in the premises, subletting, and bona fide personal use. The case of respondent is that she is owner of the premises bearing C.S. No,16-D, Block NoA, Commercial Area, Sindhi Muslim Housing Society, Karachi and appellant is her tenant in said premises under a tenancy agreement dated 1-1-1978 at monthly rent of Rs,800 with Rs,630 as additional amount payable per annum for water and conservancy charges, and that appellant did not pay rent since, Ist January, 1983. The appellant resisted the claim of respondent and denied all the allegations made against him.
2. ' At trial the respondent filed her affidavit-in-evidence and that of Mr. A.M. Chagla. The appellant submitted his affidavit-in-evidence. All were cross-examined.
3. ' Learned Rent Controller settled the following issues:--
(1) Whether the opponent has made any addition or alteration in the demised premises?
(2) Whether the opponent has sublet the premises in question?
(3) Whether the premises is required by the applicant for her own need?
(4) Whether the opponent has defaulted in payment or rent?
(5) What should be the final order?
4. ' On assessm ent of evidence brought on record, learned Rent Controller decided issues Nos,1, 2 and 3 in negative and issue No,4 in affirmative and consequently he allowed eviction application by the order, which has been impugned in this appeal.
5. ' The findings of learned Rent Controller on the points of making addition and alteration in the premises, subletting, and personal bona fide requirement, have not been challenged by learned counsel for respondent as such, said findings attained finality. The only point contested by the parties in this matter is of default.
6. ' The respondent, in her affidavit-in-evidence, stated that since, January, 1983 appellant had not paid rent and was in arrears amounting to Rs,26,800. The appellant, in cross-examination, admitted that rent from January, 1983 to January, 1985 was not paid by him. Mr. A. Karim Raima, learned counsel for appellant has also conceded, during the course of arguments, that rent for the aforesaid period was not paid by appellant to respondent. He, however, submitted that respondent had demanded rent at enhanced rate, as such, the appellant did not pay any rent. He argued that, under the circumstances, no fault was committed by appellant. In support of this contention, he cited PLD 1988, Karachi, 533, Muhammad Ishaq v. Mst. Kubra Begum, wherein it was held by a learned Single Judge of this Court that where default in payment of rent was explained or was beyond the control of tenant or had been created by deceitful and fraudulent means, there was justification for exercising discretion in favour of tenant. The rule laid down in above case is not attracted to the circumstances of this case. In this case, as per tenancy agreement, the rent was to be paid in advance in first week of every month. Demand of higher rent by itself cannot be regarded as an act of mala fides. On this point, reliance is placed on the cases reported in (1) 1985 SCM R 1996, Shamsul Islam Khan v. Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., (2) 1986 SCM R 946, M/s. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v. Syed Wahid Hussain, (3) 1989 SCM R 1366 Mst. Saira Bai v.
7. Syed Anisur Rahman. In the instant case, for over two years admittedly rent was not paid by appellant. In case the respondent had demanded rent at enhanced rate the appellant could send the rent at the existing rate by money order or deposit it in Court. He did not follow any of the options available to him. The default is wilful and no exception can be taken to the finding of learned Rent Controller on this point.
8. ' By a short order dated 20-12-1992, after hearing the arguments, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs and four months time was granted to appellant for handing over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent. Above are the reasons for the same.