19255 PLP 1364 (MLD)

This First Rent Appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Ordinance') is directed against the order dated 22‑9‑1986 of Vth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (West) whereby he has struck of the defence of the appellant and allowed the application filed under section 16(2) of the Ordinance with a result that appellant has to vacate the shop in question during 60 days from the passing of the order. Jamaluddin respondent is landlord of shop situated on plot No.877/9, Dastgir Society, Federal 'B' Area while appellant is the tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.350. The Rent Case was filed by respondent against Barkat Ali Sabri on the ground of default in payment of rent from February, 1984 till July, 1984. During the pendency of the rent proceeding, the respondent moved an application under section 16(1) of the Ordinance, and Rent Controller after hearing the Advocates of the parties passed a tentative rent order on 6‑3‑1984 by which he directed the appellant to deposit future monthly rent on or before 10th of each month at the rate of Rs.350 per month. Subsequently respondent moved an application under section 16(2) of the Ordinance stating therein that after passing of the tentative rent order the appellant failed to deposit the rent for the month of March, 1985 in time but deposited the same in Misc. Rent case on 20‑4‑1985. It was also alleged that rent of April, 1985 was also not deposited. Notice of this application was issued to appellant. The objections were not filed. The Rent Controller considering all these points allowed the application filed under section 16(2) of the Ordinance. I have heard Mr.Iqbal Ahmed appearing for the appellant. It is _.: :hat appellant deposited the rent amount in Misc. Rent Case regularly, therefore, he has not violated the tentative rent order. He has referred to a judgment of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. K‑97, of 1982 decided on 30-1‑1984. Mr.Tqbal Ahmed's grievance is that no proper enquiry was held by the Rent Controller in respect of deposit of appellant in Misc. Rent Case. He has produced the photo copies of the receipts of the amount deposited in Misc. application. He has also referred to the cases reported in 1982 C L C 2862 and 1982 C L C

702. Mr.Syed Ahmed Ali Jan is holding brief for Mr.Muhammad Ali Jan, Advocate of Respondent. In view of the tentative rent order the appellant had to deposit future monthly rent on or before 10th of succeeding month. Admittedly the appellant has failed to deposit future monthly rent with the Rent Controller. According to him he was depositing rent in Misc. Rent application. Before the Rent Controller objections were not filed, therefore, the Rent Controller had no alternative but to accept the application of the respondent and to strike off the, defence of the appellant. Not only this but the photostat copies of the receipts produced by the appellant at this stage clearly show that rent of March, 1985 was deposited in Misc. Rent application on 20‑4‑1985, and rent of April and May was deposited on 2-6‑1985. First of all appellant failed to deposit the rent as ordered by the Rent Controller with this Rent case. On this I refer to a case of Dr.Abdullah Changhro v. Tahira Begum reported in 1984 C L C 3102. It has been held that tenant depositing rent in Misc. application despite the order passed by the Rent Controller for deposit of rent in Rent case, the order of Rent Controller amounts not complied with. In the present case the explanation has not been furnished for not depositing the rent in the account of ejectment case as directed by the Rent Controller. Furthermore, even in the Misc. Rent application the rent was not deposited in time. Evidently it is clear that rent of March, was deposited on 20-4‑1985 and there is delay of 10 days. The rent of April, was deposited on 2nd June which he was supposed to deposit on 10th May, 1985. On both these accounts there is clear non‑compliance therefore, the Rent Controller has rightly struck off his defence. In case of Nazir Ahmed v. Holaram reported in 1985 C L C 412, the rent was deposited two days beyond the time it was held that defence was properly struck off. It is now settled law that Limitation Act is not applicable in these cases, therefore, delay cannot be condoned. On this I refer to case of M.Nazir v. S.Shaukat Ali reported in 1982 S C M R 1935. Lastly I am fortified with the case of Ghulam Hussain v. Mst.Roshan Bibi reported in 1986 S C M R 1715. In this case it has been held that failing to comply with the directions of Rent Controller regarding deposit of rent, the Rent Controller was justified in striking off defence. In view of the above facts this appeal fails. Consequently the order of the Rent Controller is maintained. Mr.Iqbal Ahmed submitted that appellant is a poor person and doing business therefore one year's time be given to him to vacate the shop. This request has not been opposed by Mr.Syed Ahmed Ali Jan. I, therefore, grant one year time to the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the premises. 11.8 T./8‑58/K Appeal dismissed.