2008 PLP 1087 (CLC)

AGHA RAFIQ AHMED KHAN, J.

This constitutional petition has been filed by petitioner Mst. Fauzia Irfan against concurrent orders passed by VIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi South in Rent Case No.996 of 2003 and the order, dated 24-9-2007 passed by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Karachi South in First Rent Appeal No.260 of 2005 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and maintained the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller.

2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner is tenant of respondent No.1 in Flat No.D-12 2nd Floor, Dunes Apartment, Block-5, Clifton, Karachi. The respondent filed ejectment application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in the Court of Rent Controller on the grounds of default in payment of rent w.e.f. February, 2002 at the rate of Rs.5,500 and the personal bona fide need.

3. The petitioner filed written statement in the case and during the proceedings an application under section 16(1) of the Ordinance, 1979 was filed on 13-8-2003. The petitioner filed objections to the said application and after hearing the parties learned Rent Controller passed tentative rent order directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,71,000 as arrears of rent and also future rent from April, 2005. Since the petitioner failed to deposit the arrears, therefore, application under section 16(2) of the Ordinance, 1979 was moved which was heard and the learned Rent Controller struck off the defence of the petitioner and directed him to vacate the premises within 60 days.

4. The petitioner thereafter filed appeal being F.R.A. No.260 of 2005 which was dismissed vide order, dated 24-9-2007 by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Karachi South and against the said order present petition has been filed.

5. I have heard Mr. Sathi M. Ishaque, learned counsel for the petitioner. His contention is that the petitioner had paid the amount of rent to the respondent and there was no arrears against him. The learned Rent Controller had passed the order arbitrarily without considering this fact and the document available on record.

6. I have given consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned orders as well as other material available on record. Under section 16(1) of the Ordinance, 1979 the Rent Controller has to make summary enquiry and pass tentative rent order directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent as well as future rent. In the present case also the learned Rent Controller had passed tentative rent order after considering the objections of the petitioner and after hearing both the Advocates. He had even mentioned in his order that the respondent/landlord shall not withdraw the rent of the disputed period till the final disposal of the case. The learned Additional District Judge in his order, dated 24-9-2007 had also taken all the aspects of the case into consideration and after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal as the petitioner had failed to comply with the orders of the learned Rent Controller. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in both the orders. The impugned orders are not passed without jurisdiction. The order passed by the learned Rent Controller was tentative in nature, therefore, no evidence was required to be recorded for deciding the pleas taken by the petitioner. In the circumstances, it was binding upon the petitioner-tenant to comply with the orders which he has failed to do.

7. For the above reasons, I do not see any justification to interfere with the orders of the courts below in exercise of writ jurisdiction. This petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine along with listed applications. H.B.T./F-31/K Petition dismissed.