1986 PLP 2023 (CLC)

‑‑Ss. 16(1)(2) & 21(1)‑‑Tentative rent order‑‑Non‑compliance‑‑Striking off defence‑‑Date for deposit of arrears of rent was proved to be tampered with by tenant‑‑Non‑compliance of directions of Rent Controller both with regard to deposit of arrears of rent as well as current monthly rent having been proved, Rent Controller, held, was right in striking off defence of tenant in circumstances. A.M. Mobeen Khan for Appellant. Wahid Bux Baloch for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd December, 1985. This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by the appellant /tenant against the order of Rent Controller Jacobabad, dated 13‑5‑1985 striking off the defence of the appellant in Rent Case No. 11/84 on account of default in compliance with the order passed by the Rent Controller under section 16 of the Ordinance. By order, dated 17‑11‑1984 the Rent Controller directed the appellant to deposit arrears of rent from April 1984 to October, 1984 amounting Rs.3,500 before 10th December 1984 and further directed the appellant to deposit future monthly rent commencing from 1st November, 1984 before 10th of every month. There is dispute between the parties with regard to the date of deposit of arrears of rent in Court. While according to the respondent the date for deposit of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.3,500 was 10th December, 1984 which was tampered with after passing of the order by the Rent Controller, the appellant contends that this date was 30th of December, 1984. Before the Rent Controller both the parties, namely, the appellant and the respondent produced certified copies of the order directing the deposit of rent in Court, dated 17‑11‑1984 The certified copy of the order was obtained by respondent on 12‑12‑1984 while that produced by the appellant is, dated 23‑12‑1984. According to the certified copy of the order granted to the respondent by the office of Rent Controller, dated 12‑12‑1984 the date for deposit of arrears of rent is shown as 10th December, 1984 while according to the certified copy obtained by the appellant on 23‑12‑1984 it is shown as 30th December, 1984. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the date mentioned in the order, dated 17‑11‑1984 was 10th December, 1984 as he was of the opinion that there was interpolation in his order by a different ink which did not bear the initial of the Presiding Officer. I have also seen the original order, dated 17‑11 1984 passed in the case and it is clear from that order that while there were two other corrections on the same day by the Presiding Officer which are initialed in green ink the alleged interpolation in the order namely, 30th December, 1984 is in black ink and it does not carry the initial of the Presiding Officer. In these circumstances the conclusion reached by the Rent Controller that the date of deposit of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.3,500 was 10th December, 1984 was based on cogent reasoning. Apart from it the matter does not conclude with the default alleged against the appellant in the arrears of rent. The appellant was also alleged to have committed default in respect of the month of November, 1984 for which month deposit was to be made before 10th December, 1984. It is an admitted position that the first deposit was made by the appellant in Court on 23rd December, 1984 and, therefore, even if it is accepted that there was no default in so far arrears of rent are concerned there is no explanation whatsoever for the default relating to current rent for November, 1984. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the Rent Controller rightly struck off the defence of the appellant as there was non compliance of his direction both with regard to the arrears of rent as well as current monthly rent for November, 1984. No interference is, therefore, called for. There is no merit in this appeal which ‑is accordingly dismissed but the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appellant is allowed four months time to vacate the premises on the condition that he will continue to deposit monthly rent in Court as directed by the Rent Controller. H.B.T. Appeal dismissed.