1992 PLP 1545 (MLD)

This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order dated 21‑5‑1991 passed the learned IVth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller. Karachi, East, by which the defence of the appellant was struck off, and he was directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent within sixty days. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent filed an ejectment application against the appellant asserting therein that he is landlord of Bungalow No.78, Street 7, Block .III, Maqboolabad, Karachi, and its Ist Floor is on rent with the opponent/appellant at Rs.9,000 per month. That opponent/tenant has failed to pay rent since August, 1988 in spite of repeated requests and; therefore, he was a defaulter. The tenant/appellant was served with notice and he filed his written statement stating therein that he is tenant of the entire bungalow, however, rate of rent was admitted. He has further stated that he had paid rent upto the 'month of August, 1988 to the landlord, and thereafter, when he offered rent for the month of September, 1988, the landlord/ respondent refused to accept the same and, therefore, the rent for the months of September and October, 1988 was sent through Money order which was also refused by the landlord and as such he has been depositing rent in Misc. Rent Case No.114 of 1989, and that he is not a defaulter. During the pendency of the judgment application, the landlord/respondent moved an application for deposit of arrears of rent from September, 1988 to October, 1989, and the learned Rent Controller after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties passed the following order on 23‑11‑1989. "Heard counsel for the parties. By consent of parties it is ordered that the opponent to deposit future monthly rent at Rs.900 per month in this Court on or before 10th of each month. The applicant will withdraw the arrears from M.R.C. No.114/1989." The applicant/respondent filed an application under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 before the learned Rent Controller on 17‑11‑1990 stating therein that since the tenant has failed to comply with the order passed by this Court and has made default in payment of future rent, therefore, his defence should be struck off. The learned Rent Controller issued notice to the other "side and also called for the report from the C.O.C. After going through the report and hearing of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Rent Controller was pleased to pass the impugned order. The present appeal is directed against the above order of ejectment. I have heard Mr. Aleem Akbar Shaikh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Hasan Inamullah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, and have gone through the R & P of the case. Mr. Aleem Akbar Shaikh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller regarding deposit of future rent was confusing and was not clear and, therefore, the rent could not be deposited as directed. On a question from the Court, he admitted that the rent from the month of January, was deposited on 12‑2‑1990. He also admitted that the rent for the month of July, was deposited on 13‑8‑1990 instead of 10‑8‑1990. However, the report of the C.O.C. further shows that the rent for March, April and May was deposited on 5‑4‑1990, and thereafter, only Rs. 900 were deposited on 13‑8‑1990 towards the rent of June and July. This clearly shows that the applicant had failed to deposit rent in time for three months, for which there is no explanation. The order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 23‑11‑1989 is very clear and there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the order and, therefore, the contention of Mr. Aleem Akbar Shaikh that the order was confusing is untenable. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the appellant had failed to comply with the tentative order passed by the learned Rent Controller, and as such the learned Rent Controller was right in passing the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and as such does not call for interference. The appeal has no merit and the same is accordingly, dismissed. However, I allow sixty days time to the appellant to hand over vacant possession to the respondent subject to the condition that he deposits the future monthly rent including the rent for the month of December, 1991 on or before 10th of every calendar month, so also the rent for June/July 1990 (for one month only) within seven days. In case the appellant fails to hand over the vacant possession as directed the learned Rent Controller shall issue writ of ejectment without issuing notice to the appellant, in case any execution application is filed. H.B.T./A‑1178/K Appeal dismissed,