2017 CLCN 167 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

UNITED BANK LIMITED VS IV COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE EAST, KARACHI Ss. 15 & 10---eviction petition---Payment of rent, default in---Payment of accumulated rent, even once, would make tenant liable to eviction---Rent Controller accepted the eviction petition on ground of default in payment of rent; the appellate court dismissed the same holding that there was a practice of paying rent in lump sum between the parties---Validity---Tenant had alleged that the petitioner used to accept rent in lump sum, but he had neither produced any receipt for the period of alleged default in payment of rent, nor had he brought any material on record to show that there was anything in writing from the landlord or its rent collector that accumulated rent was to be paid for six months and not on monthly basis---Tenant, having not paid the rent for the disputed period within time, had tendered the rent after committing default---Specific question had been put to the tenant in his cross-examination, and he had specifically admitted that he was liable to make payment of the rent every month as per the agreement---Petitioner's witness, on the other hand, had specifically stated both in his affidavit-in-evidence and examination-in-chief that the tenant had committed default during the disputed period, and in his cross-examination, said witness had denied the suggestion that the accumulated rent for one year or two years was being accepted from the tenant---Petitioner although accepted accumulated rent from the tenant periodically or with intervals, but that did not mean that the petitioner did not desire or expect the rent to be paid with time by the tenant as required by law, or he had waived his right to claim rent within time---Said practice by the landlord, in no way, overrode or negated the express provisions of law, nor can the same absolve the tenant from discharging his statutory obligation of paying the rent to the landlord within time under the provisions of rent laws; even the court had no power to superimpose any new procedure or method for payment of rent extraneous to the statute---High Court, setting aside impugned order of the appellate court, restored that of the Rent Controller---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.