1997 PLP 700 (MLD)

Abdul Majeed Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing; 2nd May, 1996. This is First Rent Appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) directed against the order dated 18‑4‑1983, passed by the learned IInd Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi Central, in Rent Case No.1195/87, whereby he dismissed the ejectment application filed by the appellants under section 15(ii) of the Ordinance on the grounds of default.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants are the land‑ladies/owners of building known as Ishaque Centre situated at Plot No.IV‑C‑4‑5, Block No.4, Nazimabad, Karachi, and the respondent is their tenant in respect of flat No.4 situated on Ist floor at the rate of Rs.385 per month. The respondent failed to pay the rent from August, 1983 and deposited the rent up to December, 1983 in Miscellaneous Rent Case No.5166/83 after committing default. In April, 1984, the appellants filed an application under section 8 of the Ordinance for determination of the fair rent of the premises in question and the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 31‑8‑1986 determined the rent at the rate of Rs.500 per month. The respondent is liable to pay the rent of the premises from April 1984 at the rate of Rs.500 per month. The appellant was required to pay the difference of rent i.e., at the rate of Rs.115 per month from April 1984 to August 1986, which he has failed to pay.

3. The respondent filed written statement in which he denied allegations of default and has stated that the appellants had been accepting rent through money orders from January, 1983 to July, 1983, but for ulterior motives they refused to accept the rent for the month of August, 1983 remitted on 8‑3‑1983, rent for September remitted on 10‑10‑1983 and for October which was remitted on 10‑11‑1983. Thereafter the respondent had no other option but to deposit the rent in Court in MRC No.5166/83 on 5‑12‑1983 and he is continuously depositing the rent in Court. The respondent has further stated that the appellants have misinterpreted the order dated 31‑8‑1986 of the learned Rent Controller by which fair rent was determined as from the date of judgment and not from April, 1984, when the application was filed.

4. Nisar Ahmed, husband of applicant No. l and Rent Collector filed his affidavit‑in‑evidence. Respondent/tenant Bunyad Ali filed his own affidavit‑in- evidence in rebuttal and both were cross‑examined by the parties' counsel.

5. The learned Rent. Controller on the basis of evidence produced by the parties and taking into consideration the arguments adduced by their counsel dismissed the ejectment application by holding that the respondent has not committed any default in payment of rent. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire material available on record. In the ejectment application, as well as in the affidavit of the appellant's witness nowhere it is stated that the rent was payable in advance. There is also no tenancy agreement between the parties. The appellant's witness in cross‑examination has admitted that the respondent had tendered rent through money orders up to July, 1983. He has also admitted that the respondent sent the rent of August, 1983 through money order dated 8‑9‑1993, rent for September on 10‑10‑1993 and rent for August to October, 1983, amounting to Rs.770 on 10‑11‑1983, but all these three money orders were refused by the appellant, therefore, admittedly the respondent deposited rent in Miscellaneous Rent Case No.5166/83 on 5‑12‑1983, as he had no other option. Although the appellants used to receive rent regularly sent by the respondent through money orders up to July, 1983, but for the reasons best known to them they refused rent for August, 1983 sent through money order within time and also rents for the months of September and October, 1983. The respondent therefore, rightly deposited the rent in Court in the name of the appellants. The contention of the appellants' counsel that the respondent failed to pay the difference of rent as determined by the Rent Controller while deciding application under section 8 of the Ordinance, is concerned, it has got no force because the application under section 8 for determining fair rent was allowed on 31st August, 1986 and in that order it has not been mentioned if the period of fair rent would start from the date of filing the application or from the date of announcement of the order, therefore, period of fair rent would start from the date on which such order was passed by .the learned Rent Controller and not from the date of filing the application. For these reasons I agree with the finding of the learned Rent Controller that the respondent had not committed any wilful default in payment of rent. The present appeal merits no consideration which is accordingly dismissed with costs. H.B.T./S‑43/K Appeal dismissed.