NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J. -- The petitioner has impugned the order dated 22.9.2000 of a learned Judge in Chamber, High Court of Sindh, passed in FRA No. 722/98, whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. Respondent, Mst. Farhat Alam, is owner of Shop No. S.W.8, Qurtaba Market. Bahadurabad, Karachi, hereinafter referred to as "the Premises" she tiled eviction application against petitioner and one Ameeruddin on the grounds of default in payment of rent, sub-letting, unauthorised construction, and impairing the value and utility, of the Premises. She alleged that said Ameeruddin was tenant of the Premises at monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/- under agreement dated 7.5.1996, and he failed to pay rent from 10.7.1996 and inducted the petitioner in the Premises without her permission. She also alleged that petitioner had raised unauthorised construction and thereby impaired value and utility of the Premises. She had failed eviction application on 22.10.1997 and at that time, according to her, rent for 14 months and 20 days was due.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he and one Muhammad Ashraf were doing joint business in the Premises and the respondent issued rent receipts in their joint names. It is alleged that after dissolution of the partnership, the respondent had issued rent receipts in his name. He stated that the respondent issued rent receipts upto July, 1997 in his name at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month.
Thereafter, he started depositing rent in Court in M.R.C. No. 489/97 at Rs. 550/- per month. He has alleged that the respondent made a false complaint to D.I.G, against him and on her complaint on 12.8.1997 the matter was referred to Illaqa Police.
4. One assessm ent of the evidence adduced by the parties, learned Rent Controller held that petitioner had committed wilful default in payment of rent. Consequently, his eviction was ordered and he was directed to had over vacant possession of the Premises to the respondent within 60 days.
5. Being dissatisfied with above order, the petitioner challenged it before High Court. Learned High Court examined thirty-three receipts produced by the petitioner and noted that original of those receipts were not produced and said receipts were not genuine. High Court held that payment of rent to the respondent by the petitioner through Exh. D/1 to D/33 was not proved. High Court reached the conclusion that the default was wilful.
6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that High Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and reached wrong conclusion. Learned counsel also argued that finding of High Court with regard to Exh. D-l "to D-33 is incorrect. He also argued that, in fact, petitioner is tenant of the Premises since last 10 years litigation was started in 1997. He was asked to explain that if he was the tenant of the Premises for the last 10 years, how he paid rent during said period. He replied that it was not demanded from him by the landlady. It is a case of wilful default.
7. Concurrent findings of Rent Controller and High Court are perfectly correct and do not warrant any interference.
8. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. Three months time is granted to the petitioner from now to had over vacant possession of the Premises to the respondent. In case above order is not complied with, the Writ of Possession shall be issued against the petitioner without notice to him with police aid, if necessary.