1. ' BIN YAMIN, J.---This order will dispose of above-noted Constitutional Petition filed by petitioners, namely Nazar Hussain and Abdul Rauf against the order dated 2-2-2008 passed by learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi East, in F.R.A. No,1 of 2008, directing the petitioners to vacate the premises in their possession and hand over the same to the respondent No,3. Through the afore-noted order passed in appeal, the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi East, has upheld the order dated 11-12-2007 passed by learned 1st Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi East.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,3 filed ejectment application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for ejectment of the petitioners from the premises bearing Shop No,1, situated on Plot No,344, Sector 44-A, Korangi Market No,6, Karachi on the ground of default in payment of rent and subletting. This application was registered as 245 of 2007. Earlier, respondent No,3 had filed ejectment application against the petitioners on the ground of default in payment of rent and subletting. That the said rent application was registered as 278 of 2005. The said ejectment application was allowed by learned Rent Controller under his order, dated 31-5- 2006. Appellant No,1 preferred appeal against the said ejectment order before the District Judge, Karachi East, which was finally disposed of as compromised between the parties. The respondent No,3 along with her ejectment application also filed copies of judgment of Rent Case No,278 of 2005 and compromise order passed in F.R.A. No,121 of 2006. The respondent No,3 in her rent application also alleged that appellant No,1 has also sub-let the portion of the shop to appellant No,2 at the monthly rent of Rs,2,000 without the consent of the respondent No,3/applicant.
3. Applicant/respondent No,3 prayed for issuing order for ejectment of the appellants/opponents from the premises in question and further direct them' to hand over possession of the same to the respondent No,3/applicant. The opponents appeared in Court and admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but further claimed that the rent of the premises is at Rs,500 only. The appellant No,1 further claimed that he has obtained the shop in question on Pugree and paid Rs,5,50,000 in this respect. He further claimed that the respondent No,3/applicant never issued receipt of rent to him. The opponent denied the fact of default and subletting and further claimed that appellant No,2 is working as technician of eye-glasses, as his servant. He further stated that no cause of action has accrued to the respondent No,3 for filing this application and requested for its rejection.
4. ' During the pendency of the case, the learned Rent Controller under his order dated 11-12-2007 passed under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, directed the appellant to deposit arrears of rent from October, 2006 to September, 2007 at the rate of Rs,35,00 per month with the Nazir of the Court within 15 days from the date of passing of the order and also to deposit future rent at the same rate before 10th of every calendar month. The appellant failed to comply with the order of the learned Rent Controller, Karachi East, therefore, respondent No,3 moved application under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, for striking off the defence of the appellants as they failed to comply with the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 2-10- 2007 regarding depositing arrears of rent as well as future rent.
5. ' The learned Rent Controller called report from the Nazir, who reported that appellants have failed to comply with the order of the Court, as a result the defence of the appellants was struck off under the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 11-12-2007.
6. ' Feeling aggrieved with the said order of the learned Rent Controller, Karachi East, passed in Rent Case No,245 of 2007, appellant filed. F.R.A. No,1 of 2008 in the District Court, Karachi East. The F.R.A.
7. Was transferred to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi East, who after hearing the Advocate for the parties dismissed the same under his order dated 2-2-2008, maintaining the order of the learned Rent Controller, Karachi East.
8. ' Feeling aggrieved with the findings of the learned Rent Controller as well as 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi East, the appellants have filed instant Constitutional Petition with the following prayer:--
(1) To call for the record and proceedings of F.R.A. No,1 of 2008 (M. Nazar Hussain and another v. Mst.
9. Razia Naz) from the Court of respondent No,1/1st Additional District Judge, Karachi East and after hearing the parties may be pleased to set aside the impugned orders dated 11-12-2006 and 2-2- 2008 passed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively as it is in the larger interest of justice and equity.
(2) Any other or further order which this Honourable Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
10. ' Heard Advocate for petitioners and Advocate for respondent No,3 also perused case papers.
11. ' The learned counsel for 'petitioner submitted that the learned Rent Controller as well as 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi East, have not applied their judicial mind to the facts of this case and decided the matter without considering the factual position of the case. That the petitioners have neither committed default in payment of rent nor the appellant No,1 has given any portion of the shop on rent to anybody else. That furthermore, there is no written tenancy agreement in between the parties, therefore, this fact indicates that landlady has taken huge amount from the appellant. That the actual rent of the premises was at Rs,500 and not Rs,3,500 per month. That the orders of the learned Rent Controller and 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi East, suffer from misreading and non-reading of the evidence on the record, therefore, the same are illegal and liable to be set aside. He requested for admission of this constitutional petition for regular hearing.
12. ' Learned counsel for respondent No,3, who appeared in pursuance of this Court's order, dated 29- 2-2008 on pre-admission notice, has disputed the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioner.
13. He submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, an ejectment order was passed against the appellants by learned Rent Controller, Karachi East. That against that ejectment order, appellants filed F.R.A. No,121 of 2006 in the Court of learned District Judge, Karachi East. That the said F.R.A.
14. Ended into a compromise reached in between the parties and the said appeal was disposed of on 28-9-2006. That as per compromise reached in between the parties, appellant No,1 had agreed to the payment of rent at the rate of Rs,3,500 per month to respondent No,3 w,e,f, October, 2006 on or before 10th every month. That the appellant failed to pay the agreed rent to the respondent No,3 and committed default in payment of the same, therefore, the respondent No,3 was constrained to file second ejectment application against the appellant. That this time, the learned Rent Controller under his order, dated 2-10-2007 directed the appellant to deposit arrears of rent as well as future rent in the Court. He further submitted that appellant failed to comply with the order of the learned Rent Controller, Karachi East, therefore, the defence of the appellant was struck off by the learned Rent Controller under his order 11-12-2007. That feeling aggrieved with the order of the learned Rent Controller, appellant filed F.R.A. No,1 of 2008, which was also dismissed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi East. That the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi East upheld the order of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal of the appellants under his order, dated 2-2-2008.
15. ' That as both the lower Courts have given concurrent findings with regard to the default in payment of rent and non-compliance on the part of appellants with the order of the learned Rent Controller regarding depositing of the rent, therefore, these are findings of facts, which cannot be disturbed by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. That the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the orders of the learned lower Courts suffer from misreading and non- reading of the evidence available on the record, but he has not been able to specifically mention any particular part of the evidence recorded in trial Court and not taken into consideration. That merely saying that the orders suffer from non-reading and misreading of the evidence on the record is not A sufficient to create a ground for setting aside the order of the lower Courts. That it is admitted position that appellants have failed to comply with the order of the learned Rent Controller intentionally, regarding depositing rent, therefore, the Constitutional petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.
16. ' I have considered the contentions raised at bar and also perused the material available on the record. The facts that earlier round of litigation ended to a compromise reached in between the parties and the rate of rent was fixed at Rs,3,500 per month is borne from the material available on the record, therefore, the contention of the appellant that actual rent was at Rs,500 is contrary to the material available on the record. It is held by both the learned lower Courts that appellants have failed to comply with the order of the learned Rent Controller regarding depositing of the rent in Court. It is well-settled law that the person who did not obey the order of. The Court, has no right to remain present before the Court and contest the matter. When the appellants failed to comply with the order of the learned Rent Controller, therefore, there was every justification with the learned Rent Controller to strike off the defence of the appellants and no exception can be taken to that order of the Rent Controller. The order passed by the learned Appellate Court is also in accordance with the law, hence the orders of learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Court do not warrant any interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. Finding no merits in this petition, I hereby dismiss the same in limine with costs.
17. ' These are the reasons of short order passed on 30-5-2008 by me in open Court when the constitutional petition was dismissed.