1997 PLP 2416 (MLD)

The, present F.R.A. has been filed assailing Ute order dated 1‑4‑1996 passed by the learned VIIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller Karachi East, in an application under section 16(2) of the Sindh. Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, filed by the present appellant in Rent Case No.333 of 1991 as a result of which the learned Rent Controller had struck off the defence of the appellant and orders were passed to vacate the rented premises within sixty days. Notices of this appeal were served on the respondent as per bailiff's report dated 23‑11-1996, but none .is present on their behalf, nor any objections have been filed. The brief facts are that the respondent is the owner/landlady, of the building on the Plot No. 71/I‑D D‑Market, Nursery. Commercial Area, Block 6, PECHS Karachi, and the, appellant is the, tenant in respect of the first floor of the said 'building. The respondent filed ejectment application against the present appellant under section 15 of the Sindh Rented. Premises Ordinance, 1979, inter alia on the ground of default in the payment of rent since March, 1987. The appellant filed his written statement and denied the allegations of default and also denied relationship, of landlord and tenant between the parties. Subsequently the respondent moved an application under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance; 1979 and the learned Rent Controller passed the tentative order dated 3‑12‑1991 directing the present appellant to deposit the arrears of rent and also future rent in Court on or before the 10th of each calendar month. Mr. Ghulam Ghous, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that since passing of the tentative order the appellant has been depositing the rent regularly but in the month of February, 1995 rent was deposited on 12th of the said month, Friday and Saturday being public holidays. But the learned Rent Controller passed the impugned order without considering the provisions of General Clauses Act, 1956. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there has been no violation of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller as the appellant has been depositing the rent continuously but in February, 1995 the representative of the appellant went to deposit the rent on the 9th of February 'but due to long queue could not deposit the same and since banks were closed on Friday and Saturday, the rent was deposited on Sunday the 12th of the said in month. The contention of the learned counsel was that the learned Rent Controller failed to take into consideration section 9 of the General Clauses Act wherein it has been provided that if the Court or office s closed on the last day of the prescribed period the act or proceedings shall be considered as done or taken in due time on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open. I have heard the argument's of the learned counsel and have perused the order dated 1‑4‑1996 passed by the learned Rent Controller. Admittedly, the appellant has made no 'default except as mentioned' hereinabove. The only reason given, by the learned Rent Controller in his order is that the appellant should have taken care, of the approaching holidays of Friday and Saturday and should have deposited the rent before the Said holidays. Since .it was n6t done the learned Rent Controller held that the appellant had approached the Court with unclean hands and as such, not entitled for any concession and the application finder section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 filed by the landlady was allowed. Mr. Ghulam Ghous, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied, on the case of Abdul Rehman v. Haji Mir.Ahmed, Khan (PLD 1991 SC 844) wherein also pursuant for the tentative rent order the rent was to be, deposited with the Court on or before the 10th of each month which was, complied with by the tenant Except for the month of May which was deposited on 1st July Which was the opening day of Court after summer vacation. The landlord's application under section 16(2) of the Ordinance on the ground of default was dismissed. Against the said order First Rent Appeal was filed in the High Court which was allowed. The appellant filed petition for leave to appeal which was granted to consider the above question. It was held that section 9 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956, could be pressed into service by the tenant, and, therefore, the rent could be deposited on the first day of reopening of the Civil Court in due time in terms of section 9 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956. In the present case also rent was to be deposited in Court on or before 10th of each calendar month. The date of 10th and 11th falling on Friday and Saturday, the closed official holidays the rent was deposited on the 1st working day. Admittedly there is no other delay in depositing the arrears or the future rent which could import the element of negligence or wilful disobedience on the part of the appellant. In view of the principle laid down in the above judgment the law cited and the facts of the case in my opinion there seems to be no default committed by the tenant. Above are the reasons for the short order passed on 15‑12‑1996. A.A./F‑15/K Appeal accepted.