1989 PLP 1875 (MLD)

Niazi A. Khaliq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd April, 1986. This First Rent Appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (hereinafter to be referred as the Ordinance) has been filed against the order dated 28-5-1985 of IVth Senior Civil Judge & Rent Controller Karachi, whereby he dismissed the application filed under Section 16(2) of the Ordinance. The relevant facts arc that Rent Controller on the application appellant/landlord passed tentative rent order on 21-1-1985 by which respondent was directed to deposit the arrears of rent w.e.f 1-12-1979 to 31st December, 1984 at the rate of Rs.40 per month within two months and he was further directed to deposit future monthly rent at the rate of Rs.40 per month w.e.f. 1-1-1985 and onwards on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The respondent paid Rs.120 being rent of 3 months on 2-3-1985. He was, supposed to deposit the rent for the month of January, on or before 10th of, February, 1985. He also failed to deposit full arrears within the time. . I have heard Mr. Akbar Khan Ghori for the appellant. He has argued that there is clear non-compliance of the tentative rent order passed by the Rent Controller. He has frankly submitted that he does not press so far areas of the rent is concerned but respondent has committed further default in payment of future rent. He has relied on a case reported in 1982 S C M R 965, 1985 C L C 1426. Mr. Niazi A. Khaliq appearing for the respondent submitted that Chef was dispute over the rate of rent therefore tenant used to deposit the rent Misc. Rent Application at the rate of Rs:30 per month. He has also argued that, Advocate did not inform the respondent/tenant about the passing of tentative rent order therefore it is a bona fide mistake due to which the rent for the month of January, 1985 could not be deposited by 10th of February, 1985. His contention, is that respondent has not committed wilful default in payment of rent therefore Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the application of the appellant. He has also referred to a case reported in PLD 1968 SC 2.30 and PLD 1971 SC 766, and stated that tentative sent order passed by Rent Controller is without jurisdiction as he has directed the respondent to make payment relating to arrears of morn than three years. In this appeal Mr. Akbar Khan Ghori has not pressed the issue of default of arrears but has argued about the default in, payment of future, rent. It is an admitted fact that appellant was to deposit future rent for the month of January on or before both of February ,1985. The Rent Controller was competent to pass such order as provided under Section 16(1) of the Ordinance. It is very clear that the rent of January, 1985 was deposited on 2-3-1985 therefore the rent order has not been complied with in a case of Ali Jan v. Sujauddin reported in PLD 1985 Kar. 698 it has been hel3, that the orders relating to the deposit of arrears and future rent are independent to each other. The Rent Controller has condoned the delay and dismissed the application filed by appellant under Section 16(2) of the Ordinance. The law is very clear, the Limitation Act does not apply to the rent proceedings. In a case Nazeer v. Shoukat Ali reported in 1982 S C M R 985 it has n held, that Rent Controller has no power to condone the delay. In the case of Agha Mehboob Ali v. Zarina Khawaja reported in 1985 C.L.C. 1426, the same view has been taken. Therefore the order of the Rent Controller condoning the delay is illegal and it is set aside, with the result that defence of the respondent is struck off and he is liable for eviction. Mr. Niazi A. Khaliq advanced an alternate plea to the extent that in case order of the Rent Controller is set aside, the respondent be given 12 months time to vacate the premises. This request was not opposed by Mr. Akbar Khan Ghori appearing for the appellant. Accordingly Igrant 12 months time to respondent to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to appellant. H.B.T./G-95/K Eviction Ordered.