1. ' This is a First Rent Appeal under section 21 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 filed by the appellant/tenant who is dissatisfied and aggrieved with judgment, dated 12-9-1988 passed by the learned IIIrd Rent Controller (East) Karachi (in Rent Case No,38 of 1985), ordering his eviction from Flat No,3, Plots Nos.779 and 780, Commercial Area, P.E.C.H.S. Karachi.
2. ' Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant has been a tenant of the respondent in respect of the suit premises at the monthly rent of Rs,1,200 per month since 1-6-1983.
3. ' As per averment made in the ejectment application the respondent/ landlady appointed one Marghoob Ahmed as her lawful attorney who by a subsequent authority dated 11-5-1982 had appointed one Joseph Dean to collect the rent and dues from the tenants. Pursuant to the said letter of authority the said Joseph Dean had been collecting rent from the appellant/ tenant. It is averred that the appellant/tenant had defaulted in the payment of rent for the months of April, May and June, 1985 and further he had not paid electricity, water, conservancy and gas charges for the same period. The appellant/tenant in his written statement has refuted the allegations stating that the respondent had revoked the authority of the said Joseph Dean, who refused to accept the rent from the appellant/tenant for the said months of April, May and June, 1985, consequently, he remitted rent for the three months on 29th July, 1985 to the respondent through money order which she refused.
4. ' It was urged by learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Suleman Habibullah that there is no wilful default on the part of the appellant/tenant as he had been making payment of rent regularly to the duly appointed Rent Collector. The default if any was committed by the appellant after the authority given to the said Rent Collector was revoked by the respondent and that it is a fit case for condonation. With regard to default in payment of water, conservancy, electricity and gas charges, learned counsel brought to my notice Exh.5/1 to Exh.5/5 being rent receipts which state among others in the handwriting of the Rent Collector that the said charges were included in the rent.
5. ' Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand referred to the cross-examination of the appellant in which the appellant had clearly admitted that as per Tenancy Agreement he was required to pay conservancy, water charges and other charges to the respondent exclusive of the rent and as such Exh.5/1 to Exh.5/5 cannot be relied upon when it is also an admitted position that the said Rent Collector was removed by the respondent due to his misconduct. It is also significant that the said Rent Collector was not produced by the appellant and was not confronted with these receipts. It was further urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant mala fide concealed the agreement of tenancy which as per record he had brought with him in Court and looked into while being cross-examined. This agreement contained the address of the respondent where the appellant could have sent the rent as well as water and gas charges.
6. Reference was made to the cross-examination of the appellant that he received message of the respondent through one Lodhi in respect of her demand for rent, water, conservancy and other charges, from whom the address of the respondent could have been obtained. He has not produced the said Mr. Lodhi as it would expose the appellant of his deliberate default in payment of rent. It was pointed out that whereas in his written statement the appellant has denied the payment of advance rent, in cross-examination, he has admitted that the rent was payable by him to the respondent in advance before 10th of each month.
7. ' In view of the position enumerated above, the appellant clearly defaulted in payment of rent. Even if it be assumed that water, conservancy, gas charges etc. Were included in rent, there was default in payment of rent and despite revocation of authority of Joseph Dean, the appellant could have sent the rent to the respondent. Accordingly there is no substance in the appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs.
8. ' It is reported by Mr. Mubarak Hussain Siddiqui, Advocate that the appellant has not been depositing monthly rent pursuant to order passed by this Court. Mr. Suleman Habibullah learned counsel for the appellant has no instruction in this regard but requests that some time may be granted to the appellant to vacate the premises in question. In view of categorical statement made by Mr. Mubarak Hussain Siddiqui under instructions from respondent, I am not inclined to accede to the request of the learned counsel for the appellant.