1344/2009 Suit Amin Jan Mohammad (Plaintiff) V/S Innovative Investment Bank Ltd. (Defendant)

1344/2009 Suit Amin Jan Mohammad (Plaintiff) V/S Innovative Investment Bank Ltd. (Defendant) Sindh High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author) Order Date: 20-NOV-13

the changes so made are not proved to be structural as the averments of the plaintiffs witnesses are neither corroborated nor supported by any cogent material except that of verbal assertion. So also the plaintiff has failed to bring on record and/or exhibited any receipts to show payment as maintenance charges to the Association. It is a settled practice that whenever maintenance is paid receipts are being issued towards the same and in the absence of such receipts it cannot be established that the plaintiff has paid the maintenance charges and that too at the rate claimed. Since I have observed that the plaintiff has failed to prove any structural changes in the premises, the question of damages or cost towards restoring the premises back to its original position does not arise and the plaintiff is not entitled to claim such relief. As regards the claim of notice amount i.e. 12 months rent is concerned, the defendant in his letter dated 09.05.2008 (Ex.PS-1/9) asserted that since the premises was vacated by the defendant on special circumstances, therefore it was not binding on them to give notice of 12 months. This is an admission on the part of the defendant that they have not given 12 months notice. As regards the claim of the defendant as to the special circumstances, such thing is nowhere in the agreement which may absolve the defendant to perform his part of the agreement.