1992 PLP 322 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S.16(1)(2)‑‑‑Striking off defence‑‑‑Tenant admittedly deposited rent after expiry of period fixed in tentative rent order and failed to explain such delay in depositing rent‑‑‑Tenant having failed to comply with tentative rent order, defence of tenant was rightly struck off by Rent Controller after refusing to condone delay in payment of rent. Habibullah Samo for Appellant. Urgency application granted.

1. Granted subject to all just exceptions.

2. This appeal is directed against the order of Ist Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (East) striking off the defence of the appellant under subsection (2) of section 16 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. It was alleged that the opponent had deposited rent for the month of October, 1989, two days after the last date for depositing of the rent. Besides, the rent for December, 1989 and January, 1990 was deposited as late as first week of March, 1990. Hence there was clear non‑compliance of the order of deposit of tentative rent passed on 11‑7‑1984.

2. Mr. Habibullah Samo, learned counsel for the appellant has not denied the above delay in payment of rent. He has, however, requested that the delay may be condoned in exercise of discretionary powers. The request of Mr. /a Habibullah Samo is not justified. In the objections filed before the Controller, the appellant had explained the delay in depositing rent for October, 1989 due to humid error. He did not explain as to what was that human error. Regarding the delay in depositing the rents of the months of December, 1989 and January, 1990, he has explained that this was due to. the illness of .the appellant from the last week of December, 1989 till the first week of March, 1990. He has stated that there is no other male member in his family to deposit the amount and besides, his Advocate Mr. Khuda Bux Umrani was also A seriously ill and eventually died during his such illness. This explanation was also not accepted by the learned Controller. He has observed that no Medical Certificate was produced to show that the appellant was actually ill and the illness was so serious that he could not deposit the rent for two months. The reasoning given by the learned Controller and his refusal to condone the delay were perfectly justified. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this F.RA. and dismiss the same in limine. However the appellant is allowed two months' time to vacate the premises. In case the premises is not vacated within two months, execution will be issued without any notice to the appellant. The grant of tinge is subject to deposit of rent regularly. H.B.T./A‑1133/K Appeal dismissed.