1997 PLP 869 (CLC)

Abdul Waheed Shaikh for Respondents Date of hearing: 4th December, 1994. Appellant is present in person. Learned counsel for appellant is called absent. No intimation has been received either. I have heard Mr. Abdul Waheed Shaikh, Advocate for respondent and appellant. The facts briefly are that the present respondent had instituted Rent Case No. 194 of 1988, in the Court of 1st Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Hyderabad, against the present appellant. The facts of the respondent's case are that she is the landlady of house bearing No. 1211, Unit No. 12, Latifabad, Hyderabad, and the present appellant is her tenant on the ground floor at the monthly rent of Rs.800. It is also the case of the respondent that the appellant has to pay electric and Sui gas charges at Rs.100 per month each. The matter was contested by the appellant. His case is that he is liable to pay Rs.800 per month and Rs.50 per month as electricity charges, while the use of Sui gas is without any charges. In the rent case, the landlady has moved an application under section 16(1) of the Sindh. Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, praying for an order directing the appellant to deposit the rent in Court. The Rent Controller was pleased to pass an order on 2‑1‑1989, whereby the appellant was directed to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.800 per month and electricity charges at the rate of Rs.50 per month for the period April, 1988 to September, 1989 and May, 1987 till September, 1989 respectively which total was determined at Rs.16,

200. The appellant was directed to deposit the said amount within one month from the date of the order and also to continue depositing the future rent at the above rate before 10th of each succeeding month. However, no rent was deposited by the appellant in the present case. An application was, therefore, moved under Section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, praying for striking off the defence of the appellant. The learned Rent Controller passed an order on 24‑10‑1991, directing to strike off the defence of the appellant on the grounds that the amount of rent as directed has not been deposited by him in the present rent case. The appellant had contested the said rent application under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, wherein plea was taken that he had been depositing the rent in the Rent Application No. 115 of 1988. The report of the Nazir was also brought on record, which, as ordered by the learned Rent Controller shows that an amount of Rs.14,450 had been deposited with the Nazir up to 1‑10‑1989, whereas by this date he was required to deposit a sum of Rs.15,

850. In these circumstances the defence of the appellant was struck off. I have heard Mr. Abdul Waheed Shaikh, Advocate for the respondent and the appellant, who is present in person. The contention of the appellant is that there was a difference in the amount of rent, which he was directed to deposit and that he has been continuing to deposit rent in Rent Case No. 115 of 1988 and thereafter, he has continued to deposit rent as per orders passed in the present appeal in the High Court, according to him there is no default, as by tentative order passed in this appeal he is now depositing rent in the rent case in hand. As against this, Mr. Shaikh has argued that petitioner has defined the order passed by Rent Controller, by not depositing the amount of rent in the Rent Application No. 194 of 1988, but in the other rent case filed by him, accordingly, this amounts to a default. Reliance is placed on the case of Mst. Zulekha Bai v. Muhammad Yakoob, 1989 CLC 479, and the case of Hussain Trading Company v. M/s Jalal Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd. 1993 CLC 2391. The reliance is also placed on the case of Ghulam Hussain v. Roshan Bibi, 1986 SCMR 1714. The abovesaid judgment in case of Hussain Trading Company, has been maintained by Honourable Supreme Court in the case reported in 1994 SCMR

159. It may be observed, that where an order is passed by the Rent Controller tentatively, directing the party to deposit the rent in Court, it means that at least from that date onwards the rent is to be deposited in the particular case, wherein the order is passed and if the same is not complied with or in case the party continued to deposit the rent in another miscellaneous rent case, that will amount to define of the order of the Rent Controller and is to be considered for the violation or breach of that order and the provisions of section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, would be attracted. In view of the above discussion, I find no substance in the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. However; there will be no order as to costs. The appellant shall hand over the vacant possession to the respondent within a period of 60 days from the date of this Judgment. A.A/A‑1568/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.