' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---This appeal with leave is directed against judgment dated 27-5-1991 of High Court of Sindh at Karachi, whereby F.R.A. No,813 of 1988, is allowed and in the result eviction is granted on the ground of default. Earlier Rent Case No,338 of 1988 filed on the grounds of default and personal need was dismissed by learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi Central.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant and respondent before us are tenant and landlord respectively (to be referred hereafter as such) in respect of disputed house on monthly rent of Rs,800. Landlord filed Rent Case No,261 of 1986 on 27-2-1986 seeking eviction of tenant on the grounds of default in the payment of rent for 17 months from September, 1984 to February, 1986 and requirement of premises for personal bona fide need for himself and children. Tenant did not appear and service on him was held good and case proceeded and ended by ex parte order dated 21-7-1986 resulting in the grant of eviction.
Application for setting aside ex parte order was filed. F.R.A. No,845/86 filed in the High Court was allowed by consent order and direction was given to the Rent Controller to dispose of application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. Which was pending before him. Tenant filed written statement resisting eviction on both the grounds. About default, plea was taken that he paid rent regularly but landlord did not issue receipts.
3. In evidence, landlord examined himself and two witnesses Shakir and Amir. Tenant examined himself and two witnesses Adeeb and Tariq. Meanwhile, rent case was given new number as R.C.
No,338/88 and vide order dated 8-8-1988, ejectment application was dismissed on both grounds.
Appeal was taken to the High Court which has been allowed on the ground of default only as stated above.
4. We have heard Mr. Akhtar Mahmud, learned Advocate Supreme Court for appellant and with his assistance have gone through evidence brought on the record by the parties on the issue of default. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. It is submitted on behalf of the tenant that on the issue of default finding of the Trial Court was in favor of tenant and ejectment on the ground was rejected and such finding has been reversed by the High Court without just reasons.
5. Before institution of ejectment case, landlord served upon tenant notice at his residence through registered post A/D on 26-9-1985. This service is supported by Exhs. G and H which are postal and A/D receipts respectively. Both these documents show that notice is received by Imran. Tenant denied service but took no further steps to show that Imran was not member of his family or inmate of the house. There is nothing wrong with the reasoning of the High Court that under section 114 of the Evidence Act, there is presumption that I in such circumstances letter has been delivered at the address at which it was A sent unless addressee proves that notice was not delivered at his address.
6. According to the landlord there is default in the payment of rent for 17 months from September, 1984 to February, 1986. In the written statement, tenant took the plea that he paid rent regularly to the landlord but no rent receipts were issued. Landlord attempted to dispossess him and he approached area Councilor and submitted application dated 26-1-1986 for redress of his grievance. Proceedings were taken in hand by Area Councilor as Conciliation Court, but without success. He sent rent of February, 1986 by money order which was refused and he sent another money order for February and March, 1986 which was again refused. Thereafter, landlord received rent for February, 1986 but did not issue receipt. Landlord accepted rent for March, 1986 and issued receipt. Thereafter, whenever landlord collected rent from tenant he used to issue receipt but whenever received rent from other inmates of the house he did not issue receipt. Tenant claimed that he was in possession of rent receipt for July, 1986 and paid rent up to October, 1986.
7. Evidence produced by the tenant is not satisfactory and he was unable to show that there was no default in the payment of rent for 17 months from September, 1984 to February, 1986. Two receipts produced by him and available on the record as Exhs. 0/2 and 0/3 are for the months of March, 1986 and July, 1986 which pertain to the period after the default. Admission by landlord that signatures on these two receipts are his, does not prove the case of the tenant that there was no default because there is overwriting in the figure of the year showing change to "6". Since these receipts are produced by the tenant it was incumbent upon him to explain interpolation which he has failed to do, If landlord had issued these receipts after the period of default then it is expected that he would issue receipts during the alleged period of default if rent was paid to him.
8. Tenant has examined two witnesses namely, Adeeb and Tariq, who have stated that he used to pay rent regularly to the landlord who never issued receipts. These witnesses cannot be relied upon for the reason that there is default of 17 months and these witnesses have not given any details that on each such month they accompanied the tenant who paid rent to the landlord who accepted the same but refused to issue receipt. With regard to the proceedings before the Area Councilor, tenant admitted in his cross-examination that he did not himself file any such application but his brother did. There is application on the record filed by landlord addressed to the Chairman, Conciliation, Halqa No,144. This application is dated 26-1-1986 in which it is stated that house was given to Anjum Hayat for two months only after his mother had become widow but four years had elapsed and he had not vacated the house. There was dispute between the parties because landlord wanted the house in dispute to be vacated. Area Councilor maintained diary in which proceedings were recorded. On 28-1-1986 it is recorded that Qatnar. Hayat stated before the Area Councilor that house in dispute was let by landlord on rent of Rs,800 per month. After was made to the landlord to accept rent of Rs,10,000 in advance which he declined. Landlord also declined to give receipts of the payment of rent. It is further stated therein that rent was being paid with regularity before 10th of each month. On 30-1-1986 Area Councilor recorded statement of landlord Rehmat Khan in which he denied allegation that he let the house on rent. According to him if he intended to do that he would have accepted advance of Rs,10,000 Jaffered to him. It appears from the proceedings recorded by the Area Councilor that there was agreement between the parties that the house would be vacated whenever so demanded by landlord and receipts were not issued in order not to give binding recognition to the tenancy because it was agreed that possession would be handed over if and when so required by the landlord. Area Councilor has recorded final order to the effect that since landlord and tenant in the dispute before .Him were unable to reach amicable settlement, the matter should be referred to the Court.
9. We are unable to find any flaw or legal infirmity in the judgment of the High Court which is hereby upheld and the appeal 'is dismissed. Tenant is allowed four, months' time to vacate subject to the payment of rent. In case of failure to vacate on the expiry of above period Rent Controller shall issue a writ of ejectment without any notice to the appellant.