1984 PLP 1652 (CLC)

Ss. 16 (2) & 21 Striking off defence--Plea of further inquiry regarding payment of rent not raised by tenant at time of passing tentative rent order which was neither arbitrary nor illegal but passed with consent of parties Tenant violating such order, his defence, held, liable to be struck off ipso facto. Akhtar Jehan Begum v. Muhammad Azam Khan P L D 1983 S C 1 rel. JUDGMENT This first rent appeal has been filed against the order, dated 31st October, 1982 of the Rent Controller, Karachi, passed in Rent Case No. 4559 of 1981, filed by respondent/landlady, striking off the defence of the appellant on account of non-compliance with the tentantive rent order, dated 24th March, 1982. I have heard Mr. Qamar Muhammad Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ashiq Ali Abdullah, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. It is admitted by both the learned counsel that the only question to be decided is whether the rent- for March, 1982 was paid in time according to the tentative rent order or not. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the rent for March, 1982 was paid late on 8th May, 1982. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, at the time the tentative rent order was passed, the appellant was under the impression that he had paid rent upto March, 1981 and this is admitted from the records of the Rent Controller. The position of the apellant/tenant before the Rent Controller till the tentative rent order was passed was that rent had been paid upto March, 1981. In these circumstances, the Rent Controller passed a proper order requiring the appellant to deposit arrears with effect from April, 1981. After the application had been made under section 16 (2) of the 1979 Rent Ordinance by the respondent for striking off the defence of the appel lant, in the objections filed by the appellant no plea was taken that the rent for April, 1981 had also been paid. It is for the first time in the further objections to the application for striking off the defence that a new plea is raised by the appellant that he had sent rent for April, 1981, through a money order to the respondent, which amount had been received. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that if a further enquiry had been held by the Rent Controller to determine that the rent for April, 1981 had been sent by money-order by the appellant to the respondent and if in the enquiry the Controller had reached the finding that the rent in fact had been paid through the money order for April, 1981, the application for striking off the defence of the appellant would have been dismissed.

3. I find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. At the time the tentative rent order was passed, no such plea had been raised and from the tentative rent order I find that it is a consent order in the sense that there was no dispute over the quantum of rent and the period i. e. from April, 1981 to March, 1982. In these circumstances the tentative rent order cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. On non-compliance or violation of the tentative rent order the defence of the tenant is liable to be struck off ipso facto -as has been held by the Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of Akhtar Jehan Begum v. Muhammad Azam Khan (PLD 1983 SC1). It was not neces sary for the Rent Controller to hold a further enquiry as sub mitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. A default has been committed. There is admitted non-compliance with the tentative rent order passed by the Rent Controller. Defence of the appellant has been rightly struck off.

4. I find no merit in this rent appeal. First Rent Appeal No. 1143 of 1982 is dismissed with costs. The appellant is, however, granted time till 31st May, 1983 to vacate the premises. M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed. ***