' This is an appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 filed by the appellant against the order dated 21-9-1994, passed by 2nd Rent Controller, East Karachi in Rent Case No,916/1988, whereby the appellant is directed to vacate the premises and hand over its vacant possession to the respondent within 60 days.
2. The brief facts which lead to this appeal are that the appellant is tenant of the respondent in premises No, A-550, Block-3, Scheme No,24, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi at a monthly rent of Rs, 2,200.
The respondent wilfully and deliberately failed to pay the monthly rent with effect from 1-8-1988 to 30-11-1988 as such he is liable to be ejected. With the said assertions, the respondent filed ejectment case against the appellant, to which the appellant filed his written statement denying the allegations made against him. Appellant's case is that he has not committed any default in payment of rent. He stated that as usual he paid rent at the rate of Rs,2,200 for the month of August, 1988 and September, 1988 to Zahiruddin, the father of the respondent against a proper receipt. And when the rent for the month of October, 1988 was tendered in the first week of November, 1988 and thereafter in second week of November, 1988, the respondent refused to accept the same at the agreed rate of Rs,2,200 per month, and demanded enhancement in the same. After the refusal, the appellant started depositing the monthly rent in Misc. Rent Case No,933/1988 in the Court of Rent Controller. In the last, he stated that since he refused to enhance the monthly rent, the present ejectment proceedings are launched against him.
3. The 'respondent in support of his case filed the Affidavit-inevidence of his attorney Khawaja Qamruddin, his father: Zahiruddin and also examined Mr. S. H. Siddiqui and handwriting expert, while the appellant/tenant filed affidavit-in-evidence of his attorney Zahid Hussain Bughti.
4. That learned Rent Controller holding the appellant a defaulter in payment of rent, ordered his ejectment from the rented premises, hence this appeal.
5. Mr. S.A. Jalib Chowdhry, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has not committed any default in payment of rent for the period from August, 1988 to November, 1988. He submitted that rent for the months of August, and September, 1988 at the rate of Rs,2,200 per month was paid to Zahiruddin, the father of the respondent under written receipt dated 7-10-1988.
The rent for the month of October, 1988 was tendered in the 1st and 2nd week of November, 1988 which was refused; hence the same was deposited with the Rent Controller in Miscellaneous Rent Case No,933/88 and thereafter, he continued depositing the same till an order under section 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was passed by the Rent Controller, in the above case. He also submitted that there is no default committed for the months of October and November, 1988, as claimed in the ejectment application because 60 days had not yet expired after it became due, at the time of filing of the ejectment case i,e, on 28-12-1988. He also argued that the handwriting expert has given obliging evidence in favour of the respondent/landlord in respect of the receipt dated 7-10-1988, pertaining to the rent for August & September, 1988. He submitted that the signature on the said receipt and that on other receipts and particularly on receipt dated 13-11-1987 ExhA-2/3, Affidavit-inevidence of Zahiruddin and an affidavit of Zahiruddin in support of application under section 20(d) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, dated 1-11-1979, if compared and seen with naked eye, the same are of Zahiruddin. He also submitted that the admitted signatures on rent receipt dated 13-11-1987 ((Exh:A-2/3) and on Affidavit dated 1-11-1989 bearing signatures of Zahiruddin were not sent for comparison with the disputed signature on receipt dated 7-10-1988 to the handwriting expert. Lastly, he submitted that it is a fit case for remand to the Rent Controller, for a. Fresh decision, after referring the disputed signature of Zahiruddin for comparison with receipt ExhA -2/3 and affidavit dated 1-11-1979 particularly, with other signatures to Government handwriting expert. In support of his case, he cited case-law reported in 1983 CLC 346; 1983 CLC 339; 1986 CLC and 1758.
6. Mr. Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the Judgment of the Rent Controller with full force and submitted that since the Rent Receipt dated 7-10-1988 purporting for the monthly rent for the months of August and September, 1988 has been found forged one, the default stands proved as such, the Rent Controller had no option but to pass the ejectment order against the appellant.
7. I have considered the valuable arguments of both the learned advocates and have gone through the record of the case. The whole case hinges on the receipt dated 7-10-1988. I have compared the signature of Zahiruddin on the disputed receipt with that on Rent Receipt dated 13- 11-1979 and that on his affidavit-in-evidence and an affidavit dated 1-11-1989 in support of application under section 20(d) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 made by the respondent in the lower Court, in order to satisfy myself, in the light of the arguments of Mr. S. A. Jalib Chowdhry that the said documents bearing admitted signatures of Zahiruddin ought to have also been sent to the handwriting expert, which on the face of it appear to be same in all respect. I refrain to express my opinion about the signatures on the said documents because it may prejudice the case of either party; but I am pursuaded and feel satisfied to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the 2nd Rent Controller, East Karachi with a direction to send the said documents to the same handwriting expert -for comparison, if both the parties agree. In case they do not agree on the same handwriting expert, then the above said documents and other documents alongwith disputed Rent Receipt dated 7-10-1988 be sent to Government Handwriting Expert at the cost of the appellant. After receipt of report from the hand writing expert and recording evidence if any, the matter may be decided afresh, after giving full chance to the parties to lead evidence. The parties to bear their own costs.