1. ' The arguments of the learned counsel were heard in detail and the record of the case was examined on 28-11-1996, when by a short order this appeal was dismissed and the appellants/tenants were order to be ejected, and a period of 4 months from that date was allowed for vacating the possession.
2. ' The reasons for the abovesaid short order are being recorded now.
3. ' Landlord Hafiz Muhammad Ibrahim had inducted Ghulam Moinuddin, the ancestor of the appellants as his tenant in respect of the residential portion on the first floor of the Property bearing No,K-17-54-S-14, Street No,3, Usmanabad, Karachi. Ghulam Moinuddin, however, died during the proceedings before the Rent Controller and the present appellants who are his legal heirs were incorporated as opponents in his place.
4. ' The landlord had claimed that the tenant Ghulam-Moinuddin had stopped paying the rent of the premises from January, 1990 and in 'spite of repeated requests and demands he had failed to pay the rent up to 31-1-1991 i,e,, for a period of 12 months. A sum of Rs,2,400 had accumulated as arrears.
5. In addition to the rent, it was claimed that the tenant had failed to pay the electricity charges as well as Sui Gas charges which the tenant was under obligation to pay in addition to the rent. The second ground on which the ejectment of the tenant was sought is that the landlord's family consisted of 13 members while he was occupying the adjoining property which consisted of 2 rooms on the ground floor and 2 on the first floor. It was contended that such accommodation was not sufficient for the landlord, therefore, the landlord wanted to occupy the premises in dispute personally. The tenant in his written statement admitted the relationship but pleaded that he had not committed any default as, when he had offered the rent to the landlord in the month of January, 1991 and wanted a receipt for the same, the landlord had refused to issue any receipt. On that account the tenant sent the rent through Money-Order but the Money-Order was refused. It was pleaded by the tenant that as regards the charges for the electricity and Sui-Gas, the same had to be paid to the landlord but since he had not accepted the rent, these charges were not paid to him or deposited anywhere. After filing of the rent application the tenant showed his willingness to deposit all the arrears of these amenity charges in Court. The tenant also disputed the personal requirement of the landlord by stating that landlord was an issue-less person, he was living on the ground floor with his wife and that in the month of November, 1990, the landlord had rented one of the rooms at the ground floor to one Muhammad Ikhlaq and, thus, he did not require the premises in dispute for his personal need.
6. ' From the side of the landlord his attorney Muhammad Sabir filed his affidavit-in-evidence on which he was cross-examined. In addition to that, from the side of the landlord, affidavit-of- witness Muhammad Shakir was filed but he was not cross-examined. No evidence was led from the side of the tenant. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues in his judgment.
(1) Whether opponent has committed default in payment of rent with effect from 1-2-1990 to 31-1- 1991?
(2) Whether the applicant requires the premises in question for his personal bona fide need?
(3) What should the order be?
7. ' After assessing the evidence-on-record, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that actually the tenant had committed default in payment of the rent and that the requirement of the landlord for his personal occupation was also proved. As a result, the rent application was allowed and the tenant was ordered to vacate the premises for which 60 days' time was allowed.
8. ' The only ground in appeal taken by the learned counsel was that the original tenant Ghulam Moinuddin had died on 4-7-1993 and that the appellants who are the legal heirs had no notice of the proceedings, therefore, they could not lead the evidence and that since the matter was uncontented, the appellants be given a chance to lead their evidence in rebuttal to the evidence of the landlord before the Rent Controller. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the duty was cast on the legal representatives of the deceased tenant to defend the rent application.
9. The appellants knew that they are living as tenants in the premises and they had been depositing the rent in miscellaneous rent case during the pendency of the rent case, after the death of their ancestor.. Therefore, they had knowledge of the pendency of the rent case. Even otherwise, the tenant was being represented by a learned counsel, therefore, it is not believable that the legal representatives were unaware of the proceedings before the Rent Controller. The learned counsel for the landlord/respondent further pointed out that the judgment of the Rent Controller was, dated 3-10-1994 and the copy of the judgment was applied for on 26-10-1994 and the appeal was filed on 10-11-1994. Thus, if the appellants were unaware of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, it would not have been possible for them to file the First Rent Appeal within time.
10. The contention was that if the legal representatives were themselves lethargic or negligent, they could not get any advantage for the same. It was also pleaded that the default was committed during the life time of the tenant Ghulam Moinuddin which has been proved from evidence on record and the legal representative will be bound by the acts of their ancestor and hence there is nothing wrong with the judgment of the Rent Controller. Contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent were given due consideration. There is no circumstantial proof from the record to suggest that the appellants were taken unaware of the pendency of the rent application, in spite of their due diligence after the death of their ancestor.
11. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that the order of the Rent Controller was against the principles of justice, has no force.
12. ' Since evidence of the landlord has not been challenged and even otherwise there appears default on part of the original tenant in payment of rent, there is no force in this appeal. The judgment of the Rent Controller is therefore, maintained.