1986 PLP 1335 (MLD)

Ghulam Hyder v. Muhammad Hanif P L D 1979 Kar. 167 ref. S.A. Wadood for Appellant. S. Zaheer Hassan Chishti for Respondents. . Dates of hearing: 1st and 2nd March, 1985. This case was partly heard by me yesterday and today it is fixed for further arguments. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length but Mr. Zahir Hussain Chishty, Advocate who was present yesterday is not present today. This appeal is directed against the order of Rent Controller, dated 19‑1‑1983 whereby he struck off the defence of the opponent under section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and directed him to hand over the vacant possession of the premises within one month of the order. Following facts in brief may be stated here: The rent application was instituted by the respondent No.1 against Pakistan International Airlines Corporation respondent Noi. 2 in this appeal on the sole allegation of default in payment of rent. On 4‑8‑1980 the Rent Controller passed the tentative rent order directing respondent No.2 to deposit a sum of Rs.54,600 in Court towards arrears of rent, and also directed them to deposit future monthly rent in Court until disposal of the case. At the time of passing of the rent order the Rent Controller noticed that certain amounts were deposited in a miscellaneous rent case by the present appellant which were bellowed to be adjusted and treated as deposit of rent in the rent case instituted by the respondent. It is an admitted position that the present appellant has been depositing monthly rent in Court. in compliance with the order of the Rent Controller and there has been no default in so far the compliance of the order, dated 8‑4‑1980 is concerned. The respondent moved an application under section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for striking off the defence of respondent No. 2 on the allegation that the rent as directed by the Controller has not been deposited. The Rent Controller took the view, that as the deposit of the rent has been made by the present appellant it could not be treated as deposit by respondent No. 2 and accordingly struck off his defence in the case. The present appellant has challenged the order of the Rent Controller striking off the defence of respondent No. 2 and it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since there was no default in the compliance of the order of Rent Controller the defence of respondent No.2 could not be struck off in the case. It is further contended that the Rent Controller while passing the tentative rent order itself considered the monthly rent deposited by the appellant in a miscellaneous rent case as rent deposited in the above rent case and as such the subsequent deposit made by him could not be ignored. It is also Contended on behalf of appellant that even from the averment made in the rent application it is clear that although the premises were let to respondent No‑2 by respondent No.1 but the same occupied by the appellant. The appellant also relied on the rent agreement between the parties to contend that subletting was permissible by respondent No.2. The learned counsel for the respondent only contended that as the rent was not deposited by respondent No.2 the deposit made by appellant could hot be considered as a valid deposit of rent since the appellant was not a party to the proceedings. It is true that appellant was not made party to the proceedings and his application under Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C. was rejected by the Controller but in view of the fact that the rent deposited by appellant in miscellaneous rent case was allowed to be‑adjusted as rent in the above rent case instituted be respondent, be could show that there was no default in compliance with the direction of Rent Controller for deposit of rent and for that limited purpose could also maintain the appeal in view of the decision in the case of Ghulam Hyder v. Muhammad Hanif P L D 1979 Kar.

167. It is, however, clarified that by reason of deposit of rent in Court, the appellant could neither acquire the status of a tenant in respect o the premises he did not possess the same nor the appellant's case could be prejudiced in any manner with regard to the merits of hill allegations in the case. With these observations I accept the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller. The case is sent back to the Rent Controller for disposal according to law. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T. Appeal accepted.