2001 PLP 1263 (CLC)

The present appeal is directed against the order, dated 30‑8‑2(00, passed by the learned 1st Rent Controller, Sukkur, in Rent Application No.66 of 1999 (Muhammad Nadeem v. Muhammad Tasnim), allowing the application under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, the defence of the appellant was struck off. Consequently, appellant was directed to hand over the vacant physical possession of the premise% in question to the respondents.

2. The respondent sought ejectment of the appellant from the required, premises on the ground of default in payment of rent including personal bona fide use of respondent No. 1.

3. The respondents have tiled ejectment application against the appellant in respect of C.S. No. 1209 Ward "D", situated at Jhamandas Road, Sukkur, the said property was purchased by the respondent on 16‑11‑1995. The appellant was tenant of previous owner in the ground floor shop privately No.3 of the abovesaid property at the rate of Rs.500 per month and appellant had paid rent to the' landlord regularly and has not committed default in payment of rent. After receipt of notice in the year 1998 from the landlord, the appellant sent rent through money order but it was not accepted and thereafter the appellant moved an application under section 10(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for depositing the rent from January, 1998 and the appellant has paid the rent to the landlord upto 1997 and thereafter he is depositing rent before the 1st Rent Controller, Sukkur, in Rent Application No.65 of 1998.

4. The respondents have taken plea in the ejectment application that the said shop is required for personal bona fide use of respondent No.

1. The appellant also moved an application under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and respondent have tiled their objections. It was contended by the appellant that he has paid rent to Muhammad Awais regularly and no default has been committed and filed the counter‑affidavit and taken different pleas but after hearing the appellant was directed to' deposit the arrears of rent from August, 1996 to December; 1997 at the rate of Rs.500 per month in the said rent application. The appellant was further directed to deposit the future monthly rent by an order, dated 22‑4‑2000 by the learned 1st Rent Controller, Sukkur.

5. By deciding the application under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 4979, dated 11‑5‑2000, Exh.31, the report of the Nazir was called which is placed on record as Exh.32 and from the perusal thereof, it shows that appellant has failed to comply with the order, dated 22‑4‑2000 and faced with this situation. The application was allowed and the appellant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondents within a period of 60 days.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the learned Rent Controller has failed to appreciate that the appellant had paid previous rent but no proof has been placed on record to accept the plea of the appellant. Even the appellant has not filed any objection on such application, which indicates the conduct of the appellant was tainted having ill‑will.

7. Mr. Bahadur Ali Shah, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case of Athar Ali Jafri v. Sh. Akbar Amin reported in 1995 CLC 115, Asadullah Khan v. Abdul Karim reported in 1995 CLC 1889, Ali Ahmed v. Dr. Akhtar Ali reported in 1996 CLC 1312, Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Abdul Hameed and others reported in 2000 MLD 245 and Noor Muhammad and another v. Mehdi reported in PLD 1991 SC

711. In all the abovecited cases, the tenant/appellant had deposited the rent within time in previous proceedings between the same parties in which he was depositing the rent. Therefore, the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in this matter, as the appellant has not complied with the order, dated 22‑4‑2000 and his defence has been struck off. Mr. Ghulam Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the said Court.

8. In the case in hand, I am of the view that appellant has deliberately disregarded the order of the Rent Controller, Sukkur, and there was a wilful default on the part of the appellant.

9. Since the appellant has not been able to substantiate that he had complied with the order of the learned Rent Controller, there is no violation of the settled principles of law.

10. Resultantly, this, appeal is dismissed and the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Sukkur is maintained. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑147/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.