2000 PLP 992 (CLC)

The Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is tenant of premises bearing No.C‑66, Block 10, First Floor Federal "B",Area, Karachi for rent at the rate ,of Rs.7,500 p.m. The t6spondent is landlord of the said premises. He filed the Rent Case against the appellant before the Rent Controller on the ground of default in payment of rent from the month of November, 1997. During the pendency of the said rent case the respondent/applicant moved an application under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. On the said application, learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties passed the order dated 10‑1'1‑1998, operative part whereof is reproduced below:‑‑‑ , "Hence opponent is directed to deposit monthly rent arrears from November, 1997 to November 1998 at the rate of Rs.7,500 per month amounting to Rs.82,500, electricity charges amounting to Rs.15,401 and Sui-gas charges amounting to Rs.1,258 within 30 days from the date of this order. Opponent is further directed to deposit future monthly rent at the same rate on or before 10th of each succeeding month till disposal of the present rent case. The appellant filed an application for review of above order. The respondent also moved application under section 16(2) (ibid), since the appellant tenant/failed to comply the abovementioned order. Accordingly, learned Controller passed the order, operative part whereof is reproduced below:‑‑‑ "As far as the application under Section 16(2) of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is concerned the opponent has miserably failed to comply the said order as admittedly no deposit has been made in the Court as per direction. Hence defence of the opponent is liable to be struck of, therefore, application under section 16(2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is hereby allowed. Opponent is directed to vacate the said premises in question within 60 (sixty) days hereof and hand over its vacant, physical, peaceful possession to the applicant. The application for recalling order/review the order is dismissed with no orders as to costs. " Against the above said order passed on 12=5‑1999, this appeal has been preferred. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record available before me. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order passed on application under section 16(1) (ibid) is not legal for the reason that the learned Controller did not conduct proper enquiry before passing the said order. According to him, the amount stood already paid but that payment was not considered by the Controller. As such, the order under section 16(1) (ibid) is not maintainable and since the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the illegal order passed under section 16(1) (ibid) hence it is not sustainable at law. He placed reliance on case of Ali Jan v. Shujauddin reported in PLD 1985 Kar.

698. Leaned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant miserably failed to make compliance of the order passed by learned Controller on 10‑11‑1998 so much so that neither arrears of rent and other charges were paid by the appellant nor the rent excepting for a month of June 1998 was deposited by the appellant after passing of orders dated 10‑11‑1998. This position has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the appellant is a defaulter in payment of the rent foc the tenanted premises learned Controller has passed a legal order after pertinent enquiry. He placed reliance on case reported in 1992MLD 400, 1994 SCMR 159, PLD 1995 Kar. 31 and 1996 MLD 320 . I have given by anxious thought to the contentions of both the learned counsel for parties. Learned Controller on an application of landlord namely the respondent in this appeal passed an order dated 10‑11‑1998 under subsection (1) of section 16 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Said subsection is reproduced as follows:‑‑‑

16. Arrears of Rent.‑‑‑(1) Where a case for eviction of the tenant has R been filed, the Controller shall, on application by the landlord and after such summary inquiry as he deems fit to make, determine the arrears of rent due and order the tenant to deposit the same within such period as the Controller may fix in this behalf and further direct the tenant to deposit monthly rent regularly on or before the enth of every month, until final disposal of the case." It is noted that there are no constraints on a Controller in holding a summary A enquiry for determination of arrears of rent. It is apparent from the order dated 10‑11‑1998 that learned Controller conducted a summary enquiry before passing the said order, determined arrears of rent and required the appellant to deposit the same within specified period. Learned Controller by the said order further directed the appellant to pay future rent by 10th of every succeeding month. it is vividly clear from the said order that) relationship of landlord and tenant between parties is admitted so the rate of rent is admitted. Thus, this order patently seems to be within ambit of section 16(1) in letter and spirit and cannot be termed illegal. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has not made compliance of the order passed by the Controller on 10‑11‑1998. Since the appellant not only failed to deposit arrears of rent but, he also failed to deposit future rent except for the month of June, 1998, learned Controller passed impugned order dated 12‑5‑1999. The cited case law reported in PLD 1985 Kar. 698 is, therefore, of no help to appellant in view of following observation made therein:‑‑‑ "We have no doubt that the directions for deposit of arrears of rent and for deposit of future rent are independent of each other and are two separate directions though that may be contained in one order or the reason that there may be cases where there may not be any arrears of rent to be paid. In such cases there will not be any order by the Controller for deposit of arrears of rent. There will be an order only for deposit of future rent only. We may consider the question from another angle. Assuming the Controller had passed the order of deposit of arrears of rent according to law and also the order of deposit of future rent again in accordance with law and the appellant had complied with the order>of deposit of arrears of rent but had not complied with the order of deposit of future rent still, the tenant would have been liable to be evicted from the premises. " Accordingly, learned Controller was justified in striking off the defence of the appellant and passing further orders directing him to vacate tenanted premises within sixty days. This appeal, therefore, merits no consideration and is dismissed in limine. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S‑S/K Appeal dismissed.