1. FAISAL ARAB, J.-The petitioner is tenant of respondents Nos.1 and 2. Respondents had filed rent application on three grounds i.e. Personal need, violation of the terms of the tenancy agreement and default in the payment of rent w.e.f. January, 1999.
2. In the evidence that has come on record, the respondents have shown their inclination to re-induct the petitioner after construction of the building. This by itself has damaged the plea of the personal use of the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the respondent contends that there is huge space and after construction one shop would have been given to the petitioner. As re-induction has been promised, therefore the plea of personal need is not established.
3. As regards damage to the floor; the same has been constructed and no evidence was produced to show that in doing so any damage has been caused, therefore, as it B was a case of only laying of a new floor in place of old one, therefore, no case for breach of any term of agreement is made out.
4. The third ground with regard to default in payment of rent is concerned, Mr. Jhamat Jethanand, learned counsel for the petitioner has very candidly admitted that the rent from the January, 1999 to August, 1999 was dispatched for the first time through money order on 14-9-1999. It has come on record that after directly tendering the rent for the month of December, 1999 to the respondents, the petitioner did not offer rent to the respondents and waited for 8 long months to remit the rent through money order. It is established principle that even where there is refusal on the part of the landlord, the tenant is obliged to either remit the rent through money order or deposit the same into Court. Therefore, irrespective of the fact whether rent was offered to the landlord or not, the rent should have been remitted or deposited in Court within stipulated period provided in section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Having faced with this position, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the proviso to section 15(ii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
5. This proviso though came after filing of the ejectment application, but since it is a beneficial legislation its benefit can be given even in pending proceedings However, the matter does not end here: Even The proviso, does not help the petitioner as the default is much longer than six months.
6. The rent for January, 1999 was deposited on 14-9-1999 whereas the rent for January, 1999 became due on 10th February, 1999. The six months' period expired on 10th of August, 1999 and admittedly the January 1999 rent was sent through money order on 14-9-1999, thus default for a period of 33 days was committed beyond six month period.
7. In the circumstances, this petition though succeeds, on the grounds of personal need and breach of terms and conditions of tenancy agreement it fails on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The petitioner is directed to vacate the premises and handover its vacant possession to the respondents Nos.1 and 2 within six months.