1994 PLP 159 (SCMR)

SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J: ‑‑The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge in chambers of the High Court of Sindh dated 12‑1‑1993, whereby F.RA. No. 326 to 1992 filed by the petitioner to challenge the order of IIIrd Rent Controller, Karachi, granting ejectment of the petitioner, was dismissed and the order of Rent Controller was maintained. The respondent instituted a Rent Case No.105 of 1990 against the petitioner alleging default in payment of rent and subletting of the premises. During pendency of the rent case the Rent Controller, or. 14‑1‑1991, directed the petitioner, under section 16 (2) of the Sindh Rented premises Ordinance 1979, to deposit arrears of rent before the next date of hearing in the case and continue to deposit current monthly rent in Court before 10th of the each month until disposal of the rent case. The petitioner at the time of passing of the above rent order; contended before the Rent Controller that he was already depositing the rent in Court in MRC No. 108 of 1990. The Rent Controller accordingly observed in the rent order that the amount already deposited by the petitioner up to the date of the passing of rent order in MRC No. 108 of 1990 will be adjusted in the rent order passed in Rent Case No. 105 of 1990. It is an admitted position in the case that in spite of the order of deposit of rent dated 14‑1‑1991 the petitioner made no deposit in Rent Case No. 105 of 1990. The respondent, accordingly, filed an application before the Rent Controller for striking off the defence of the petitioner in the ejectment case. In reply to the above application of respondent, the petitioner contended that he was regularly depositing the rent in MRC No. 108 of 1990. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner deliberately committed non‑compliance of the order dated 14‑1‑1991 and accordingly struck off his defence in the rent case. On appeal the learned Judge in chambers not only found that the petitioner had deliberately failed to deposit rent in the Ejectment Case No. 105 of 1990 in spite of clear direction of the Rent Controller by continuing to deposit the rent in MRC No. 108 of 1990, but it was also found that the petitioner had also committed default in depositing the rent according to tentative rent order as the total rent deposited by him in Court was short by one month's rent. Following were the conclusions of learned single Judge:‑‑ "Apart form the above there is clear cut default of one month's rent by the appellant which can be gathered from the perusal of the record. Under the tentative rent order, the appellant was directed to deposit arrears of Rs.4,200 per month by 28‑1‑1991. This period comes to 12 months for which the total rent amount becomes Rs.50,

400. The receipts produced by the 'appellant indicates that instead of depositing, Rs.50,400 as directed, the appellant deposited Rs.46,200, thus there was short payment of Rs.4,200 which is equivalent to one month rent and the same has not been deposited by the appellant. The amount of rent paid by the appellant uptil 28‑1‑1991 was further cross checked with the report of the Nazir which indicates that in January, 1991, the appellant deposited the rent on 8‑1‑1991. If we tabulate the amount deposited from 8‑1‑1991 and go backwards upto February, 1990, the total amount comes to Rs.46,20 . Thus, the appellant has committed wilful default of one month's rent which is proved from the record." The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to demonstrate that the above findings of learned Judge in chambers suffered from any infirmity. No case for interference is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. AA./H‑175/S Petition dismissed.