1990 PLP 1523 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 13(6)‑‑‑Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.16(1)‑‑ Ouantum of monthly rent‑‑‑‑Determination of‑‑‑Rent Controller was not required to determine quantum of monthly rent if same was in dispute‑‑‑Rent Controller, was, however, required to determine such amount approximately‑‑ Non‑compliance of rent order would entail summary disposal of case without taking any further proceedings‑‑Rent Controller could not go into the question whether factually tenant was entitled to adjustment of any amount at the time o the passing of the tentative rent order. Faizanul Haq for Appellant. Syed Inayat Ali for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th March, 1987. This appeal is directed against the order dated 7‑4‑1986 passed by the Vth Senior Civil Judge Rent Controller, Karachi (East) whereby she struck o1 defence of the appellant and directed him to hand over vacant possession c premises in dispute to the respondent within one month from the date of the order. The respondent filed an eviction application No. 4598/72 (new No.4/85) against the appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent. The appellant resisted the eviction application. The respondent filed an application under section 16 (1) praying therein that the appellant be directed to deposit re 6‑9‑1980 to 31‑7‑1984 amounting to Rs.44,

650. The appellant filed objections stating therein that a sum of Rs.9,100 was due from the responder Controller after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, directed appellant to deposit Rs. 50,350 within 50 days from the date of the order and future monthly rent from February 1985, till the final disposal of the eviction application. The appellant instead of complying with the order filed an application for review. It is well‑settled legal position that review application is not maintainable. The respondent filed an application under section 16 (2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for striking off the defence. The notice was served upon the appellant. The appellant did not choose to contest the application and he did not file an objection. The Nazir's report dated 3‑12‑1985 shows that the appellant did not deposit any amount. The Controller allowed the application as stated in the earlier part of this judgment. By order dated 8‑10‑1986 the appellant was directed to deposit Rs.42,750 with the Nazir of this Court within six weeks from 8‑10‑1986. The appellant did not comply with this order. The learned counsel for the appellant is unable to offer any plausible explanation for non‑compliance of the orders. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Controller was under obligation to determine finally the amount payable by the appellant. This contention is devoid of force. This might have been relevant consideration for deciding the question of default prior to the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Mst. Akhter Jehan Begum and four others v. Muhammad Azam Khan (P L D 1983 S.C. 1) in which it has been laid down by g the Supreme Court that for the purpose of passing an order under section 13 (6) of the repealed Ordinance, in para materia S. 16 (1)] a Controller is not required to determine quantum or rate of rent monthly if the same is in dispute, but is required to determine such amount, approximately and consequence of non compliance of order entails summary disposal of the case without taking any further proceedings. In view of the above dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not open to me or even it was not open to the Controller to go into the question whether factually the appellant was entitled to adjustment of any amount at the time of passing of the tentative rent order. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, I allow six months time to the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute failing which the respondent shall be at liberty to file an execution application after the expiry of the above period of six months. The learned Controller shall issue a writ of eviction without any further notice to the appellant. A.A./A‑835/K Appeal dismissed.