1. ' SALMAN ANSARI, J.---This appeal has been filed by the appellant Dawood Khan who being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi passed on 11th October, 2006, whereby the ejectment application filed by the petitioner/respondent Sheraz Ahmed under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, which was allowed and the appellant was directed to vacate the demised premises and handover its peaceful possession to the petitioner within 30 days.
2. ' The appellant being a tenant and respondent being a landlord of Bungalow No,77, Lane No,21, Phase-VII, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi. In the application under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 ejectment was sought on the grounds that the appellant/opponent was a defaulter in payment of rent since middle of November, 2002, the rent agreed between the parties being Rs,36,000 per month and further the appellant had also failed to pay the utility charges since couple of years. On 14-7-2005 an application under section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 was moved by the petitioner respondent for orders to direct the opponent to deposit the rent from the middle of November, 2002 till filing of the case (14- 7-2005) and also future rent at the rate of Rs,36,000 per month before the court. Thereafter the opponent had filed his written statement on 3-9-2005 and his statement of account on 12-11-2005.
3. ' That by his order dated 5-7-2006 the opponent/appellant was directed to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs,15,34,000 arrears of rent for the period from October, 2002 to July, 2006 (44 months) at the rate of Rs,36,000 per month in the Court of Rent Controller, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi within 30 days and it was also directed that the respondent will deposit future monthly rent at the rate of Rs,36,000 per month in favour of the petitioner before the 5th of every month and the first such rent shall be deposited before the 5th day of August 2006 for the month of August, 2006.
4. ' Subsequently, by his order dated 11th October, 2006 the learned Additional Rent Controller of Rents passed the impugned order as:-- "The Court Accountant was called. He confirmed that the respondent has not deposited the arrears of tent however, rent for the month of August, 2006 deposited on 5-8-2006 and for the month of September, 2006 on 9-9-2006 by the respondent.
5. ' In view of the evidence on record, application filed for recalling Rent Deposit Order by the respondent, objections filed by the respondent to the application under section 17(9) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 and confirmation of the Court Accountant xegarding non payment of arrears of rent by the respondent as well as deposit rent of August and September, 2006 after committing default as the monthly rent has to be deposited on or before 4th of every month whereas the respondent deposited rent from the month of August, 2006 on 5-8-2006 and for September, 2006 on 9-9-2006, it is proved that respondent has not compiled with the rent deposit order dated 5-7-2006 regarding deposit of arrears of rent as well as monthly rent. The respondent has failed to comply with the directions contained in the rent deposit order dated 5-7- 2006 regarding deposit of arrears of rent and monthly rent which clearly brings the respondent within the mischief of the provisions of section 17(9) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963."
6. ' That both the parties were heard at the time of Katcha Peshi and the operation of the impugned order was suspended.
7. ' Thereafter the Misc. A. No, 1239 of 2008 was moved by the respondent to dismiss the F.R.A as the appellant has violated the order dated 4-12-2006 by which this Court has directed the appellant to deposit the rent with the Nazir on or before the 10th of each English calendar month. That the said order was passed on an application that had been moved earlier in C.M.A. No,2866/2006 by the appellant to permit the appellant to deposit the current rent before the Nazir of this court during the pendency of the appeal. That as the appellant had violated the directions of this court hence appeal should be dismissed. On application C.M.A. No, 1239/2008 the Nazir's report dated 20-4- 2008 was considered which shows that after 27-8-2007 no further monthly rent was deposited by the appellant and the fresh report dated 11-10-2008 was called and as shown in the earlier report the same amount of Rs,2,82,000 was lying with the Nazir and no further rent has been deposited.
8. ' That it would be pertinent to point out here that in the order dated 14-12-2006 it was directed that in view of the statement of the learned counsel for the appellant that prior to 2006 he had deposited the rent within the learned Controller of Rent, he was required to file the documents to substantiate those facts and those documents have not been filed to this day.
9. ' That both learned counsel for the appellant and respondent have been appiearing on the dates of hearing. The learned counsel for' the respondent had relied upon 1983 CLC 470 (Kar.) Shaikh Fazal Din v. Dawoodur Rehman and others, PLD 1987 Lah. 47 Abdul Razzaq v. Saleern Hidayat and 4 others 1998 MLD 1073 (Kar.) Syed Mehdi Raza v. Mst. Abeeda Sultana 1979 SCMR 496 (Kar.) Mushtaq Hussain v. Muhammad Shaft 1981 SCMR 538 Ziaullah Shah v. Syed Riaz Ahmed 2001 SCMR 130 Ashiq Ali and another v. Mehar Elahi and 13 others, 2007 CLC 546 (Kar.) Tabassum Sheikh v. District & Sessions Judge and others PLD 1983 Supreme Court 1, Mst. Akhtar Jehan Begum and 4 others v.
10. Muhammad Azam Khan PLD 1967 Supreme Court 530 Ghulam Muhammad Khan Lundkhor v. Safdar Ali and PLD 2007 Kar; 178 Shahid Mehmood v. Nasreen Masood and 4 others.
11. ' That in the present case the respondent/applicant had moved his application for ejectment of the tenant/ opponent/appellant only on the ground of default which bad been allowed and the appellant/opponent was ordered to vacate the premises within 30 days and after the present appeal was preferred before the High Court by the appellant he has also according to the Nazir's report defaulted in payment of rent and placing, reliance in PLD 2007 Karachi 178, in which it was held that:- "Tenant was directed to deposit arrears of rent within specified period during pendency of appeal against ejectment order, which he failed. Striking off defence of tenant-Validity-Provision of S. 16(2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 had provided that where tenant had failed to deposit arrears of rent or pay monthly rent under subsection (1) of S.16 of the Ordinance,- his defence would be struck off and landlord would be put into possession of premises. Impugned order whereby defence of tenant was struck off for noncompliance of mandatory tentative rent order, was quite just and proper. Appellate Court having been vested with all the powers of Rent Controller, impugned order was legally valid and could not be interfered within exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. "
12. Therefore in my opinion the findings of the learned Rent Controller would require no interference as apart from his default in the payment of rent committed as shown in the impugned order, the appellant has also committed default in the payment of rent as he has violated the order and directions of this court to deposit the monthly rent on or before the 10th of every month.
13. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs.