1989 PLP 2867 (MLD)

I, therefore direct the opponent to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.450 per month with effect from 1-8-1985 to 31-5-1986 (ten months) to the tune of Rs.4,500 in this Court on or before 10th August, 1986. He is further directed to continue to deposit in this Court the further monthly rent of the premises at the same rate of rent Rs.450 per month on or before 10th of each succeeding calendar month till final decision of the rent application. The rent so far deposited by the opponent if any in Misc rent application may be withdrawn by the opponent." It appears that the appellant tenant, for reasons best known to him, continued depositing rent in the misc rent case in spite of the last paragraph of the aforesaid consent order under section 16 (1) that the rent till then deposited by the appellant if any in the misc. rent application can be withdrawn by the appellant. As no deposit was made in the ejectment case pursuant to the aforesaid rent order dated 16-6-1986 an application was moved under section 16 (2) of the Ordinance and by the impugned order dated 5-10-1986, the application was allowed and the defence of the appellant struck off and the appellant ordered to be ejected from the premises in question. In support of the present appeal the following two contentions have been raised by Mr. Mohammad Hanif Mangi, learned counsel for the appellant: (a) The rent order is defective inasmuch as the amount already deposited by the appellant in the misc. rent case should have been adjusted and the balance, if any, then due could have been ordered to be deposited as arrears by the Rent Controller. (b) The deposit in a misc. rent case which had also been tiled earlier before the same Rent Controller should have been treated by the learned Rent Controller as deposit persuant to the rent order passed under section 16 (1) of the Rent Ordinance. In support of his contentions Mr. Mohammad Hanif Mangi, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following reported judgments. (1) Syed Khadim Hussain Abedi v. Mst. Geti Ara Begum (1984 C L C 68) (2). M/s, M.A. Yahya v. M/s Nawab Abdul Malik Estate (1982 S C M R 1160) On the other hand Mr. Wahid Bux Baloch learned counsel for the respondent relied on an authority referred in the impugned order i.e. Dr. Ghangro v. Mst. Tahira Begum (198.1 CLC 3102) and a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Hussain v. Mst. Roshan Bibi (1986 S C M R 1714). In the instant case, in my view, it is not necessary to decide the point raised by Mr. Mohammad Hanif Mangi, learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Controller should have granted adjustment of the amount already deposited by the appellant in the misc rent case. As observed earlier the rent order dated 16-6-1986 is a consent order and it was observed by consent that the rent if any deposited by the appellant can be withdrawn by the appellant. Further on account of the same consent order it was obligatory upon the appellant to deposit the rent not only in so far as arrears were concerned but also further rent in the ejectment case but he continued to deposit the rent in the misc. rent case. Then the legality of the rent order can also not be challenged as the same is a consent order and otherwise also there is no illegality in the order. No doubt this is a technical default on the part of the appellant but in view of the law and the, consent order dated 16-6-1986, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. FRA 64/86 is dismissed but with no order as to costs. The appellant, is however, granted lime till 31-12-1987 to vacate the premises subject to payment/deposit of rent. The rent already deposited by the appellant and that which may be deposited in future can be withdrawn by the respondent. H.B.T./C-94/K. Appeal dismissed.