Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.

Section: 13 , 15

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ---- Ss.13 & 15 --- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.118--Default in payment of rent --- Burden to prove --- None of the witnesses produced by landlord had said even a word about non-payment of rent by tenant---Tenant while appearing as his own witness had, however, deposed that he paid the rent regularly --- Burden of proof could have shifted to tenant, had landlord asserted by entering in the witness-box that rent was not paid by tenant --- Pleadings, where landlord had asserted non-payment of rent could not be treated as substitute for evidence-- Both parties, however, having led evidence, question of burden of proof became immaterial --- Landlord having not produced any evidence on question of default, tenant's categorical statement that he had paid the Tent regularly to landlord, could not be discarded --- Rent Controller had rightly come to conclusion that plea of default was not proved --- Appellate Court's judgment to the contrary thus, could not be upheld --- Appeal was accepted and judgment of lower Appellate Court was set aside and that of Rent Controller was restored. Ch. Muhammad Hassan for Appellant. Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th ApriL.1980. JUDGMENT The respondents filed a petition for ejectment of the appellant from the house in dispute on the grounds of default and damaging the property. The appellant resisted the petition. After perusal of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Rent Controller held that neither the default was proved nor it was established that the appellant damaged the property. Thus by his order dated 14-7-1975 he dismissed the petition. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge did not disturb the findings of the learned Rent Controller regarding damage to the property, but reversed his decision on the question of default. In his opinion, as the respondents specifically stated in the   petition that the appellant was defaulter, therefore, it was for him to have proved that the rent was tendered for payment or actually paid to them. In view of his this finding, he accepted that appeal by his order dated…