1986 PLP 242 (MLD)

A.Q Malik for Appellant. Karamchand for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd October, 1985. This First Rent Appeal is filed against the order of learned VIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, dated 4‑12‑1984, dismissing the application of the appellant under section 16(a) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are, that the respondent is tenant of the appellant, who filed Rent Case No.1985 of 1980, for the eviction of the respondent, on the grounds mentioned in the application. The learned Rent Controller in his order, dated 20‑9‑1980 directed the respondent to deposit arrears of rent amounting to Rs.480 before 30‑10‑1980 from January, 1980 to August, 1980, and further directed him to deposit future monthly rent of each month on or before tenth of each succeeding month. The respondent admittedly deposited Rs.470 with the Nazir on 30‑9‑1980 and further a sum of Rs.130 on 18‑10‑1980.

3. It is contended by ‑Mr. A.Q. Malik, learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent had deposited Rs.10 short of amount ordered by the learned Rent Controller to be deposited. He deposited Rs.470 instead of Rs.480 and further he deposited the rent for the month of September on 18‑10‑1980 viz. eight days later than the specified date.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Karamchand, learned counsel for the respondent, that the respondent had in fact given Rs.480 to the Nazir of the Court but he issued receipt bi s.470^ only, and that any how deficiency, if any, in the arrears of rent, was completed before the due' date viz. 30‑10‑1980. It is further argued, that this amount of Rs.470 was deposited before 30‑10‑1980 viz. on 30‑9‑1980 and this should be considered to include the rent for the month of September 1980 also. It is contended, that even if the rent for the month of September is deducted from Rs.470 still the arrears of rent as ordered by the Rent Controller were deposited before 30‑10‑1980.

5. On calculation, contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, appears to be correct, except that while depositing the amount of Rs.470 on 30‑9‑1980, the respondent did not specifically' mention, that this amount also included the rent for the month o September, 1980. Even if the amount of Rs.60 towards rent of September, is deducted from the amount of Rs.480 deposited on 30‑9‑1980, still by depositing Rs.130 on 18‑10‑1980, the respondent did not only make up deficiency, if any towards the arrears of rent, but also deposited the rent for the month of October, 1980 in advance. Therefore, in fact in terms of payment of the amount by due date, there is no default except that it is not specifically mentioned, that the first deposit by the respondent included the rent for the month of September. This default, if any, is simply a technical default. If the learned Rent Controller has accepted the explanation of the respondent and exercised his discretion in his favour, he has neither committed any illegality nor passed a wrong, order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs. The case be sent back to the concerned Rent Controller for the disposal of the main application on merits in accordance with law. H . B . T?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.