MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.- By this common judgment, we propose to decide Civil Petitions Nos. 1431 and 1432-L of 2000 as questions of law and facts are identical in both of them.
2. The petitioner is tenant in two shops of the respondent at the monthly rent of Rs. 900/- each. The respondent filed ejectment petitions in respect of these two shops separately against the petitioner seeking his eviction on the- grounds of default in the payment of rent from December, 1996 to August, 1997. Sub-letting and damage.
3. The Rent Controller after evaluating the evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the grounds. Of sub-letting and damage had not been proved whereas the default in the payment of rent had been proved, for the plea taken by the petitioner that he had paid an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- in advance to the respondent in connection with the tenancy of these two shops which was lying with him. Was not proved to be correct and further his plea that he had spent some amount on the repair of the shops was also not proved. Through order dated 18.6.1999, the ejectment petitions were accepted and the petitioner was directed to vacate the shops before the specified dates.
4. In appeal filed by the petitioner, the first Appellate Court after reappraisal of evidence upheld the findings on the issue of tenancy and maintained the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller by dismissing the appeal through order dated 23.11.1999 against which, second appeal filed by him has been dismissed by the High Court through the impugned judgment dated 21.4.2000, against which leave to appeal has been sought.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of these petitions raised the following contentions:-
(b) That the petitioner had spent an amount of more than Rs. 15,000/- on the repair of the shops which had been proved by these witnesses, therefore, the said amount should have been adjusted against the rent of the disputed period.
6. Learned counsel when questioned admitted that so far as nonpayment of rent for the disputed period was concerned, the same was an admitted fact but the said non-payment could not be held as default, as the said amount could be adjusted from the said amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- and the amount which he spent on the repair of the shops.
7. All the Courts below have unanimously held that the payment of an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- and spending of any amount on the repair of the shops as alleged had not been proved, therefore, as per the plea raised by the petitioner himself that no payment of rent was made during this period, it was rightly held that the ground, of default had been proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner when questioned as to how die oral evidence as to payment of Rs. 3,25,000/- in the presence of agreement of tenancy in writing executed in 1986 in which no mention of the same had been made, could be relied upon and held to be admissible, has no answer. Even the statements of the witnesses produced by the petitioner as to payment of this amount was disputed during the cross- examination as they were suggested that they were giving false evidence.
8. The findings of facts recorded by all the Courts below are based on correct appraisal of evidence, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity calling for interference by this Court as such no ease for grant of leave to appeal has been made out.
Consequently, these petitions have no merits which are dismissed and leave to appela refused.
9. The petitioner is, however, allowed two months the to vacate the shops provided he pays the rent in time.