1989 PLP 676 (CLC)

‑‑‑Ss,.16 & 21‑‑Enforcement of Shariah (Revised) Ordinance (XXI of 1988), S.4‑‑Where, in a rent case, the defence of the tenant was struck off due to non‑compliance of the order of Court, plea of tenant that the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was repugnant to Islam, not considered and his application for reference to the Shariat Bench was dismissed accordingly. G.M. Shaikh for Appellant. Rashiduddin Ahmad Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1988. In this First Rent Appeal the defence of appellant Shaikh Muhammad Ashraf has been struck off as he failed to deposit the rent in terms of the order passed by the Rent Controller under section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

2. The facts are that 'he appellant is a tenant of Plot No.2/15‑H, Block‑2, P.E.C.H. Society, Karachi. The rent case was filed in the month of April, 1984 on the ground of default in payment of rent from 20‑9‑1983 to March, 1984. An application under section 16(1) was moved before the Rent Controller by the respondent and the Rent Controller by an order dated 18‑8‑1987 directed the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent @ Rs.1,000 per month from September, 1983 to July, 1987 for 47 months amounting to Rs.47,000 within one month from the order. He also directed appellant to deposit the future monthly rent at the same rate on or before 10th of each calendar month till the disposal of this case.

3. The order of the Rent Controller was not complied with by the appellant as such an application under section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was moved to which the appellant filed objections and order under section 16(2) has been finally passed and the appellant has been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within 30 days.

4. I have heard Mr. G.M. Shaikh, Advocate for the appellant. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Rent Controller has not considered the receipts produced by the appellant. He has also argued that the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is repugnant to Islam and he has moved an application for the reference to the Shariat Bench of this Court, therefore, this matter be referred to Shariat Bench. Mr. Rashiduddin Ahmad, Advocate for the respondent, submitted that appellant has not paid the arrears nor is he depositing the future rent in terms of the tentative rent order. It is argued that according to law the appellant is liable to be evicted.

5. It is an admitted position that appellant has not complied with the order of the Rent Controller as he has not deposited the arrears as well as future rent in terms of the tentative rent order. The appellant is present and he was .asked whether he is depositing or making payments of the future rent after the passing of the tentative rent order, but he stated that he has sent money order to the respondent but not deposited the amount before the Rent Controller.

6. I have gone through the facts. This Court by order dated 24‑5‑1988 directed the appellant to deposit the rent at Rs.500 per month from 21st May, 1987 to 21st May, 1988 within the period of 3 months and rent for the months of June and July shall be deposited on or before 10‑8‑1988, thereafter, current rent shall be deposited @ Rs.500 per month on or before 10th of each succeeding month. On these conditions the order of the Rent Controller was stayed. The appellant has not deposited any amount towards the arrears or the future rent as directed by the Rent Controller in order passed on application under section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Not only this, but he also :failed to deposit the rent in terms of the order of the High Court. There is a clear non‑compliance of the tentative rent order and order of this Court. The appellant is holding premises without paying future rent also. I am of the view that Rent Controller has rightly struck off the defence of the appellant. For the reasons stated above, the appeal, having no merits, is dismissed with costs. Mr. G.M. Shaikh, Advocate for the appellant, has also moved an application for making a reference to the Shariat Bench of this Court. I am not inclined to accept this application. The application is E dismissed. He is at liberty to move an application before any Court of law if so advised. M.Z.S./M‑616/K Appeal dismissed