1989 PLP 3597 (MLD)

Arif Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th February; 1989. This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order dated 2nd August, 1988, whereby the defence of the appellant has been struck off and he has been directed to hand over the vacant physical possession of the premises to the respondent within 60 days.

2. The facts are that the Rent Case No. 4324/85 was filed by the respondent. The respondent is the landlord and filed an application under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the ground of default in payment of rent from April, 1985 to November, 1985. The written statement was filed. In the meanwhile an application under section 16 (1) of the Ordinance was moved by the respondent on 25-11-1986. The copy of tech was handed over to the learned counsel and the application was adjourned for hearing on 4-12-1986 and finally order was passed on 18-8-1987, directing the appellant to deposit the arrears from Aril, 1985 to July, 1987, amounting to Rs. 21,000 within 60 days. During this period there were various-hearings but the appellant have not filed any objection to this application and the Rent Controller has passed the impugned order.

3. I have heard Mr. Syed Mehmoodul Hasan, learned counsel for the appellant. It is contended that there was a dispute about the arrears, therefore, he was not bound by the tentative rent order, but started depositing future rent after the passing of the order. He has clearly stated that he has not paid the arrears right from April, 1985 to July, 1987 as ordered by the Rent Controller. He has referred to the cases reported in 1986 MLD 2980 and submitted that case be remanded. Mr. Arif Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent, argued that wilful default has been committed by the appellant as the appellant has not complied with the order deliberately, therefore, Rent Controller has rightly struck off his defence. He has referred to 1988 CLC 1486 and 1988 CLC 2051.

4. The appellant was served and was supplied copy of the application under section 16(1) of the Ordinance on 15-11-1986, but he did not file any objections to the application till August, 1987 when tentative rent order was passed. The contention of Syed Mehmoodul Hasan is that tentative rent order was defective, therefore, he started depositing future rent only.

5. I have gone through the record. In the written statement the appellant has taken the plea that rent was paid upto December, 1985 in spite of that and according to his own admission, he has failed to deposit rent from January, 1986 till the passing of the tentative rent order, at least he was bound to comply with the order to that extent, but it is contended by the learned counsel that the money order was sent. There is no evidence in this respect that money order was sent and it was received. Even otherwise when there is a specific direction to pay the rent, there was no reason for sending money order directly to the respondent. The Rent Controller has dealt with all the aspects of the case and I am also of the view that there is a clear default on the part of the appellant.

6. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is dismissed with costs. M.Y.H./A-563/K Appeal dismissed.