1986 PLP 1554 (CLC)

ABDUL RAZZAK A. THAHIM, J.--This appeal under section 21 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 has been filed against the order, dated 17-5-1984 of learned IXth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby he directed the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within 90 days from the date of the order.

2. Rent case was filed by respondent Muhammad Khaleeq on 22-3-1980 on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal requirement. Written statement was filed. On 25-5-1981 respondent landlord filed an application wherein it was prayed that appellant be directed to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of 200 per month from November, 1979 to May, 1981 for 19 months. After hearing the parties the Rent Controller by his order, dated 14-9-1982 directed the appellant to deposit arrears of rent from November, 1979 to August, 1982 at the rate of Rs.66 per month and continue to deposit future rent till the decision of the case before 10th of each succeeding month. The appellant was also allowed adjustment for the amount he has already deposited in Rent Case No. 938 of 1980.

3. The learned Rent Controller by an order, dated 17-5-1984 on application filed under section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 directed the eviction of the appellant on the ground that he committed default in payment of rent for three months with effect from November, 1979 to January, 1980. Being aggrieved with this order, this appeal has been filed.

4. I have heard Mr. Abdul Khalil, Advocate for the appellant. He contended that the appellant deposited the arrears on 28-2-1984. He has relied upon the case reported in 1984 C L C

68. Mr. Khawaja Naveed Ahmad, Advocate for the respondent was present in the morning and argued one bail application but at the tame when this case was called he was absent. He did not request for adjournment. However, later on he came in my chambers and submitted that appellant has not complied with the order of the Rent Controller, therefore, he is liable to be evicted. There was dispute about the rate of rent as the case of the landlord is that rate of rent is Rs.200 per month but finally while passing the tentative rent order both the parties agreed that appellant should deposit rent at the rate of Rs.65 per month as such tentative rent order was passed in terms of the consent of both the parties. Now the question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant committed breach of the order passed by the Rent Controller under section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The learned Rent Controller got the report from the Nazir and came to the conclusion that appellant has failed to pay rent for three months i.e. from November, 1979 to January, 1980, thus not complied with the tentative rent order.

5. The tentative rent order was passed on 14-9-1982 and an application under section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance was filed on 3-5-1983 in which it is stated that appellant has failed to deposit monthly rent, therefore, his defense be struck off. The particulars of arrears are neither given in application nor in affidavit filed in support of the application. In view of the order of the Rent Controller, the appellant was to deposit arrears from November, 1979 to August, 1982 on or before 20-11-1982. The reports of the Nazir does not show when arrears were deposited. Moreover, the Rent Controller also allowed appellant adjustment but the final order of the Rent Controller is silent on this point. The appellant in his affidavit filed on 3-12-1983 stated in para. 4 that he had not committed default. The report of the Nazir was also not filed by the respondent in support of his application. The contention of the appellant is that he had already deposited the arrears of the rent in the Court before passing the rent order. He made such application on 29-2-1984. The tentative rent order was passed on 14-9-1982 and application under section 16(2) was made on 3-5-1983 after 7 months and the Rent Controller passed order of eviction on 17-5-1984 that is after one year of filing the application. He even did not care to proceed with the rent case after passing tentative rent order. The position of default of three months is not clear and all contentions raised by the appellant have not been discussed in the impugned order.

6. For the reasons stated above, I set aside the order of the Rent Controller passed on 17th May, 1984. He is directed to proceed with the rent case and give opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and decide the case on merits as early as possible.