1988 PLP 306 (CLC)

This First Rent Appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Ordinance') has been filed against the order dated 5th October, 1986, of IInd Sr. Civil Judge & Rent Controller, Karachi (West), in Rent Case No.4178/84, whereby defence of appellant was struck of under section 16 (2) of the Ordinance for non‑compliance of the order dated 26th March, 1986, of the Rent Controller. A Rent Case was filed under section 15 of the Ordinance and admitted on 30‑12‑1984. The Rent Controller by an order dated 27th February, 1985, decided the rent case in favour of respondent and directed the appellant to vacate the premises within two months. This ex parte order was subsequently set aside. On 14‑1‑1986, respondents filed an application under section 16 (1) of the Ordinance. The rejoinder was filed by the appellant and finally the Rent Controller passed tentative rent order and on 21‑4‑1986, an application under section 16 (2) was moved by the respondents to which objections were filed and finally the Rent Controller allowed the application and directed the appellant to vacate the premises within the period of two months. Mr. Muneer‑ur‑Rehman appearing for the appellant contended that proper summary enquiry as contemplated under section 16 (1) of the Ordinance was not held. It is argued that rent of May, 1385, was sent to the respondent by money order which was accepted. He submitted that future rent and arrears from June, 1985, to February, 1986 were paid. The contention of the learned counsel is that there was a dispute about the payment of electricity and gas bills, therefore, appellant filed a review application under section 21 of the Sind General Clauses Act and findings based by the Rent Controller are contrary to the facts and law. It is submitted that in view of P L D 1987 Kar. 16; 1985 CLC 553 and PLD 1978 Kar. 145, the review under section 21 of the General Clauses Act cannot be competent. He has also referred to the cases reported in PLD 1985 Kar. 689; 1985 CLC 3018; 1986 CLC 1554, ; and 1985 CLC 1426, and on the point of not holding proper enquiry before passing the impugned order. Mr. Habibullah Samo appearing for the respondents submitted that arrears of electricity and gas have not been paid which appellant was supposed to pay in terms of the agreement. It is further argued that default is from February, 1984. The written statement in this case was filed on 21st October, 1985, after the ex parte order was set aside. The arrears according to the statement of accounts furnished by the respondents in respect of rent were given from February, 1984 to December, 1985, for 23 months and arrears of electricity and gas charges in the tune of Rs.11,000, The Rent Controller directed the appellant to deposit arrears of 15 months from February, 1984, to April, 1985 amounting to Rs.8,250 and deposit rent from the month of June, 1985 to February, 1986, at the same rate amounting to Rs.4,

950. Appellant was further directed to pay arrears of electricity charges amounting to Rs.7,344 as per K.E.S.C. bills produced by the respondent and further rent on or before 10th of every month. Mr. Samo admitted that arrears from June, 1985, to February, 1986, and future rent has been paid by the appellant in time in terms of the tentative rent order. Therefore, it is to be seen whether appellant has committed default in payment of arrears from February, 1984, to April, 1985. The plea taken by' the appellant is that rent of May, 1985, was tendered by the money order which has been accepted by landlady; therefore, it was not in arrears as per orders of the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller in the tentative Rent Order has clearly stated that appellant has paid the rent for. May, 1985, for one month. This entire controversy about the arrears could only be decided when evidence is recorded and witnesses are examined. Very acceptance of rent of May, 1985, by the respondent prima facie to be considered for the time being without going into detail, only for the purpose of tentative assessment. Now I come to the arrears of electricity. In this regard the appellant produced bills of K.E.S.C. and alongwith objections and it is contended that these bills were not considered by the Rent Controller in the impugned order. There is force in this argument as Rent Controller in his order stated as under:‑ . "If she would have been deposited arrears of rent as per the rent order, then it could have been considered that she may pay half of the charges in respect of sui gas, but she has not complied the rent order." The Rent Controller in his order also‑ observed that in absence o any provision of power of review cannot be exercised under that Statute. On this, in case of Haseen Ahmed Khan v. Irshad Khan reported in PLD 1987 Kar. 16, it has been held that Rent Controller E has got power to review by invocating section 20 of West Pakistan General Clauses Act and same is the position in case of Mohammad Ramzan v. The Rent Controller, reported in 1985 CLC 553; therefore, Rent Controller, is competent to review the order and the impugned order is not speaking order. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, I am of the view that proper enquiry has not been conducted, C therefore, the order is set aside, and the case is remanded back to the Rent Controller with the directions to complete the rent case within four months and decide it on merits and according to law. M.Y.H./K‑47/K Case remanded.