2004 PLP 1993 (MLD)

The appellant preferred appeal under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 against the order dated 5-52004, whereby the learned Rent Controller struck off the defence of the appellant due to non-compliance of tentative rent order passed on 21-2-2004 and directed him to vacate the premises in question. Brief facts for the purpose of disposing of the appeal are that the respondent filed Rent Case No.83 of 2003 against the appellant in respect of flat, bearing No.103, first floor, Marine Galleria Apartments, Block 9, Clifton, Karachi, which was let out to the appellant at the monthly rent of Rs.10,500 on the ground of default from May, 2003. The appellant filed written statement and in the said written statement he stated that it was the practice between the parties to pay the rent for several months together. The learned Rent Controller passed tentative rent order on 21-2-2003, directing the appellant to deposit arrears of rent amounting to Rs.105,000 being the rent from May, 2003 to February, 2004 at the rate of Rs.10,500 per month on or before 19-3-2004 and deposit future monthly rent on or before 5th of every calendar month. The Rent Controller further directed that the first such rent shall be deposited by the appellant before 5th March, 2004. On failure of the appellant to deposit the rent in terms of order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the respondent filed application, under section 17(9) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The appellant filed objections to the said statement however, did not deny that the appellant has failed to deposit the rent in Court in terms of tentative rent order passed by the learned Rent Controller and stated that he is depositing future rent and will soon clear the outstanding arrears. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties allowed the application and struck off the defence of the appellant, against which order this appeal has been preferred. Heard Mr. S. Riaz Hussain Shah, learned counsel for the, appellant. Mr. S. Riaz Hussain Shah, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the learned Rent Controller has committed error of law in failing to take into consideration that the appellant has paid a sum of Rs.31,850 to the respondent before passing the rent order and the said amount was not adjusted while ordering to deposit the arrears of rent. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the cases of Col. Mirza Dawood Ahmad v. Dr. Afsar Aijaz and others (1991 CLC 1566), Dr. Abdul Hafeez v. Province of Punjab through the Secretary Education Lahore and others (PLD 1991 SC 165), Mst. Anwar Begum and 7 others v. Syed Muhammad Siddique and another (1991 MLD 1182) and Begum Mumtaz Riaz v. Masood Siddiqui and others (1988 CLC 311). I have gone through the memo. Of appeal as well as record of the learned Rent Controller and have taken into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant: It appears that the learned Rent Controller passed tentative rent order on 21-2-2004, directing the appellant under section 17(8) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.105,000 for a period from May, 2003 to February, 2004 and further to deposit future rent with effect from 5-3-2004. It is an admitted position that the appellant had failed to deposit the arrears of rent in terms of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, however, deposited Rs.10,500 on 5-3-2004, Rs.31,500, being the arrears from May, 2003 to July, 2003, instead of arrears from May, 2003 to February, 2004 and then deposited the rent for the months of April, May and June, 2004 on 12-4-2004, 13-5-2004 and 3-6-2004 respectively. The appellant has failed to give any explanation for the non-compliance of the tentative rent order passed by the learned Rent Controller. The appellant/tenant not only required to give plausible explanation for non-compliance of tentative rent order that due to unavoidable circumstances for particular period of time he could not comply the order passed by the Rent Controller, but also to show that he acted bonafidely and immediately thereafter had deposited the rent in terms of order passed by the Controller. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the non-compliance and that tenant has notacted negligently, the Controller has to pass order for striking off the I A defence of the tenant. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no help to him. In the case of Col. Mirza Dawood Ahmad v. Dr. Afsar Aijaz and others (1991 CLC 1566), the learned Court decided the issue pertaining to personal requirement of the landlord. The said matter has no relevance with the issue in hand. Likewise in the cases of Mst. Anwar Begum and 7 others v. Syed Muhammad Siddique and another (1991 MLD 1182) and Begum Mumtaz Riaz v. Masood Siddiqui and others (1988 CLC 311) the appeal was arising out of final order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller. For the foregoing reason the appeal is dismissed in limine with1B no order as to costs. M.H./N-31/K Appeal dismissed.