1. Impugned in this first rent appeal is the order dated 29-4-2000 passed by First Rent Controller, Shikarpur, whereby the ejectment application filed by the respondents was allowed and the appellant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed premises within one month to the respondents. The brief facts stated in the ejectment application are that the disputed property was allotted to the father of respondents by Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 23-4-1960 in an open auction.
2. The record was mutated in city survey in the name of their father Sikandar Ali. The property was then gifted by him to his sister Mst. Razia on 15-6-1974 and the same was exchanged vide R.D.
3. No,803 dated 26-9-1991 and the said premises were mutated in the name of deceased on 23-2- 1991. It is asserted in the ejectment application that premises in question was rented out by the father of the respondents to appellant on 1-3-1995 at the rate of Rs,2,000 per month by an oral agreement. The father of respondents died in June, 1995 and left behind the respondents as his legal heirs. It is stated that after the death of their father, the appellant stopped paying rent to them and committed default since August, 1995. The appellant filed a Suit No,22 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge, Shikarpur against respondent No,9 wherein he prayed that he should not be dispossessed from the premises by the defendant. The said suit was withdrawn, after the respondent No,9 made a statement to the effect that appellant shall not be dispossessed from the premises without due course of law. The relationship of landlord and tenant was not denied by the appellant and the appellant was not paying the rent fixed at the alleged rate of Rs,900 as asserted by him. The respondents demanded rent from August, 1995 at the rate of Rs,2,000 and claimed the arrears for the last three years from the date of filing the ejectment application. It was further asserted in the application that the respondents required the premises in question for their personal bona fide use as the respondents Nos.2 and 3 were married and the remaining respondents were also grown up. The appellant after service submitted his written reply wherein he stated that the disputed house was rented out to him by the father of respondents in the year 1990 and he paid Rs,50,000 as deposit on 5-3-1991. He further stated that the previous rate of rent was fixed Rs,700 and thereafter it was enhanced to Rs,900 per month. He has stated that he paid the rent up to March, 1999 and has committed no default. The appellant further submitted that the respondents should repay Rs,10,000 as he paid Rs,50,000 to Sikandar Ali in advance and then he incurred expenses of Rs,30,000 on the repair of the premises and later on he paid more advance of Rs,20,000 to respondents. On the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller settled the following issues:--
(i) Whether opponent committed wilful default in making payment of rent?
(ii) Whether the premises in question is bonafidely required by the applicants in good faith for their personal need? The respondents/applicants in support of their case examined respondent No,1 who filed his affidavit and submitted extracts from the Property Registrar, certified copy of Suit No,22 of 1997 and order passed thereon dated 15-3-1999, Witnesses Abdullah and Khair Muhammad were examined as Exhs.18 and 19 respectively. The appellant failed to adduce any evidence although several chances were provided to him but he even failed to cross-examine the respondent and his witnesses. Ultimately on 22-4-2000 the side was closed. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for filing affidavit of appellant but he failed to file his affidavit and produce witness in defence. The applications were moved for reopening side but the same were dismissed by the trial Court under the circumstances. The trial Court ultimately came to the conclusion that appellant was defaulter and then the premises in question was required to respondents for their own use and ultimately passed ejectment order against the appellant. It is contended by Mr. Noor Muhammad Soomro that the appellant has paid the rent up to March, 1999 and has committed no default. On my query he has not been able to show me the receipts for payment of rent. He has stated that the proper chance was not given to the appellant to adduce the evidence in the Court of Rent Controller.
4. The appellant was rented out the disputed house in March, 1995 by the father of respondents but he failed to make payment of rent after the death of their father. The respondents have examined themselves and stated on oath that rent is not paid by the appellant since August, 1995. The respondent and his witnesses have not been cross-examined by the appellant. He has not produced any evidence showing that he has paid the rent, no receipt has been produced on record. The initial burden of proof lay upon landlord to establish that tenant had not paid or tendered disputed rent but after the landlord has once stated in the Court-in-affidavit that the rent had not been paid to him by tenant; then, the burden is shifted to tenant to prove affirmatively that he has paid or tendered rent for disputed period. In the instant case landlord has testified in the Court on oath and his evidence is not shattered by the other side and tenant has failed to prove that he has actually paid the rent. He has failed to submit any documentary evidence to show that he has paid the rent. The learned counsel has admitted during arguments that they are at present not paying rent to landlord nor depositing it in Court. It is rightly held by Rent Controller that appellant has not paid rent since August, 1995.
5. The next issue is regarding the requirement of premisses for personal bona fide use by the respondent. The evidence has been adduced by landlord that respondents Nos.2 and 3 are married and they have three children out of their wedlock. The remaining respondents are though unmarried but they are grown-up and have reached their marriage stages but they have not contracted marriages for want of proper accommodations. The testimony of landlord has neither been shattered nor the appellant has adduced any evidence contrary to it. Under these circumstances the ejectment order is just and proper which does not call for interference. This First Rent Appeal No,9 of 2000 is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. The appellant is directed to hand over the vacant possession to the respondents within thirty days of the passing of this order.