1986 PLP 1729 (CLC)

Mr. I.H. Zaidi is present pursuant to pre‑admission notice issued by my learned brother Mr. Justice K.A. Ghani. This is an appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) from an order, dated 25‑5‑1985, passed by VIII Senior Civil Judge and Controller, Karachi, whereby he ordered the appellants under section 16(1) of the Ordinance to deposit electricity charges in arrears amounting to Rs.98,609.67. I have heard Mr. S. Inayat Ali learned Counsel for the appellants and also Mr. I.H. Zaidi learned counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by Mr. S. Inayat Ali that the electricity charges not being part of the rent could not be ordered to be deposited under t section 16(i) of the Ordinance. In this regard, he relies on the so called admission made by Pir Bux Khan in his cross‑examination wherein he has stated that the electricity charges are not included in the amount of rent of Rs. 5,046.12 p. m. It is argued that the electricity charges could be included in the rent as per definition of 'rent' given p in section 2(i) of the Ordinance if there is nothing repugnant in the subject or context and in view of the admission made by the witness of the respondents that the amount of rent does not include the electricity charges the rent would not include electricity charges and, therefore, the Controller could not have ordered the charges to be deposited in Court. I regret, I cannot agree with the arguments for the definition of rent does not include electricity charges and there is nothing in the context of the Ordinance or in the subject which excludes electricity charges from the rent as defined in the Ordinance. The evidence of the witness relied upon cannot be read in isolation. The witness in his cross‑examination has further stated that the amount of electricity charges are to be separately billed and charged from the appellant and that there is a separate sub‑meter for every tenant in their building. I may here quote the relevant cross‑examination. "The electricity charges are not included in the amount of rent of Rs.5, 046.12 p. m. It is correct that the account of electricity charges from the opponent. There is a separate sub‑meter for every tenant in our building." Therefore, there is nothing in the subject which makes the definition of rent as given in section 2(i) of the Ordinance in applicable to the case. Since according to the definition, the electricity charges are part of the rent and there is nothing in the subject, therefore, I am of the opinion that the Controller had jurisdiction under section 16(1) of the Ordinance to pass order for deposit of arrears of electricity charges and according y no exception can be taken to it. Since this was the dnly ground urged I, therefore, dismiss the appeal in limine. I may however, mention that Mr. Zaidi raised an objection to the maintainability of this appeal. His objection was that no appeal lies under the provisions of section 21 of the Ordinance against ah interim order. Since, I have dismissed the appeal on merits, it was not necessary to go into this question. Mr. S. Inayat Ali states that time for deposit of the arrears electricity charges is expiring today and he therefore, requests that may be extended by a week. However, Mr. Zaidi consents for four days. I, therefore, by consent extend the time by four days.