1. The present appeal has been filed against the order of learned Additional Controller of Rents Clifton Cantonment who by order, dated 12-5-1998 allowed the application under section, 17 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 filed by applicant Mrs. Shahnaz Anwar who is present respondent. The opponent/present appellant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises within 30 days. The ejectment has been ordered on ground of default and also on the ground of personal bona fide use of the landlady.
2. The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that in March, 1994 tenancy agreement was executed between the respondent and the appellant. The said agreement was for period of 11 months commencing from 1-4-1994. The appellant paid the agreed rent amount to Rs.88,000 in advance plus an amount of Rs.10,000 which was paid as security deposit refundable at the time of vacation of the said premises. Receipt of the said amount of Rs.98,000 was acknowledged by respondent in the said agreement and also by a separate receipt. After expiry of 11 months the respondent continued to receive the rent through cash as well as cheques which were paid to Mrs. Shamshad Abbasi, sister and attorney of the respondent who is residing in the adjacent house. The appellant tendered the rent for the month of June, 1997 vide Cheque No.0007752, dated 2-6-1997 and further rent for the month of July, 1997 vide Cheque No.0007755 dated 2-7-1997. The said attorney of the respondent returned the appellant the cheque which was rent for the month of July, 1997. Therefore, the appellant had sent rent for the month of July, 1997 through money order which was not acknowledged. The appellant also came to know that the attorney of the respondent had not encashed the cheque which was rent for the month of June, 1997. On 1-8-1997 the appellant filed a Miscellaneous Rent Case No.69 of 1997 and deposited the rent for the months of June, July and August, 1997. The respondent filed Rent Case No.71 of 1997 in the Court of Controller of Rent Clifton Cantonment, Karachi 'for eviction of the appellant on grounds of default in payment of rent, personal requirement and for having impaired the value and utility of the premises. The appellant filed written statement on 30-8-1997. Tentative rent order was passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi, whereby appellant was directed to deposit rent of September, 1997 before 5th October, 1997 at the rate of Rs.8,000 per month and to continue depositing rent of subsequent months before 5th of each of succeeding months. During proceedings the respondent filed her own affidavit-inevidence and also .filed affidavit-in- evidence of her husband Syed Anwar Ali. In December, 1997 appellant filed affidavit-in-evidence of her son and attorney namely Mohib Hassan Khan. Thereafter, written arguments were filed by both the parties.
3. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the purpose of filing eviction application was to compel the appellant to pay unreasonable rent. The Additional Rent Controller had not considered the material evidence and in fact no case of default for the months of June, July and August, 1997 was made out. The Rent Controller did not examine the attorney of the respondent who had accepted the cheques of rent. As regards grounds of personal bona fide use the learned counsel submit that at the time of renting out the premises the appellant was already residing in Islamabad with her family where her children are studying. In December, 1995 ground floor of the premises was vacated by the tenant but it was again rented out in March, 1996. The appellant's evidence that the respondent had demanded rent of Rs.14,000 per month has remained, unchallenged and unrebutted. In addition to oral arguments the learned counsel for appellant has also filed written arguments wherein he has stated that there was no stipulation in the tenancy agreement for payment of monthly rent in advance, the rent application filed by the respondent in the month of August, 1997 before the Rent Controller with allegation of default in payment of rent for the months of June, July and August, 1997 was wholly frivolous. On 1-8-1997 appellant filed Miscellaneous Rent Case No.69 of 1997 in the same Court and deposited the rent for the month of June, July and August, 1997, therefore, there was no default at all. It is further submitted that respondent in her application has asserted that the premises in question is required by her for occupation of her family members and has given the reason that the respondent's husband being an employee of P.I.A. had completed his one year posting at Islamabad and was to be transferred to Karachi, but the respondent did not file any document to support of her assertion and her husband was also examined but he did not produce any document to support this assertion.
4. Learned Advocate for respondent submitted that the ejectment has been ordered on grounds of wilful default in payment of monthly rent and on the ground that the premises in question are required by respondent for personal bona fide use. The learned Rent Controller has given reasons in suppor of his findings which are well-founded. The respondent's husband has been transferred to Karachi and the respondent is residing in her father's house at the address shown in the title of ejectment application. The affidavit-in-evidence filed by the respondent has not been controverted by the appellant as the appellant herself did not file any counteraffidavit-in- evidence but the attorney of the appellant had filed affidavit-inevidence. The relevant portion of cross-examination of appellant's attorney is as under:-- "My mother is tenant in respect of 1st floor Bungalow No.2-1, A/2, 1st North Street, Phase-I, D-II-A, Karachi. It is correct that ground floor of the said premises is in possession of some other tenant."
5. The learned Advocate for respondent, therefore, argued that affidavit-in-evidence filed by respondent/applicant was not controverted by opponent/appellant. Therefore, the contentions of respondent remained unrebutted. Learned Advocate for respondent has relied on decisions reported in (1) PLD 1995 Pesh. 9, (2) 1987 CLC 1716, (3) NLR 1980 AC 456, (4) 1985 CLC 2094, (5) 1989 CLC 662, (6) 1989 CLC 662, (7) 1989 CLC 975, (8) 1991 CLC 2039, (9) 1995 MLD 847 and (10) 1991 SCMR 1421.
6. It is admitted position that the respondent/applicant is owner of the premises in question and the appellant was her tenant. The respondent has proved through her evidence that premises in question are required by her for personal bona fide use and for use of her family. The reasons given by the learned Additional Controller of Rents, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi in support of finding on Issues Nos.2 and 3 are well-founded and there is no need to reproduce the same. It has been proved that the respondent requires the premises in question for her personal bona fide use and for the use of her family. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.