1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--- By this single order, I propose to dispose of the abovesaid two First Rent Appeals as the parties and the issues involved in both the appeals are common.
2. ' Appellant, Arif Lakhani, is aggrieved by the order dated 28-9-2010 passed by the Additional Controller of Rent, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi in Rent Cases Nos.63 of 2009 and 64 of 2009 filed by respondent No,1, whereby the defence of the tenant/appellant was struck off under section 17(9) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 and he was directed to vacate the demised premises and to hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to respondent No,1 who was owner of the said property; the present appeal has been filed by the tenant/appellant against the said order.
3. ' Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No,1 filed two rent cases, bearing Rent Cases Nos.63 of 2009 and 64 of 2009 seeking ejectment of the appellant from the demised premises, being offices at Mezzanine Floor of Buildings Nos.13-C and 11-C, 24th Commercial Street, Tauheed Commercial Area, Phase V, DHA, Karachi on the ground of default in payment of rent. During the proceedings of the said rent case, the Additional Rent Controller passed a tentative rent order dated 25-5-2010 whereby the tenant/appellant was directed to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs,951,350 (Consolidated in Rent Case Nos.63 and 64 of 2009) for the period from May, 2000 to May, 2010 in the Court of Additional Controller of Rent, Clifton Cantonment.
4. ' It appears that the tenant/appellant failed to comply with the said tentative rent order of depositing rental amount in the court and, therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the landlord filed an application with a prayer strike off the defence of the tenant/appellant; the said application was heard, in consequence whereof the impugned order was passed by the Additional Rent Controller.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.
6. ' Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order has been passed in a hasty and mechanical manner without appreciating the facts and law involved, hence the same is not sustainable. He submitted that the landlord/respondent No,1 has instituted the rent cases on the ground of default in payment of rent from the year 2001 and argued that rent case cannot be filed on the basis of default and recovery of rent for more than three years. He further argued that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to pass an order for arrears of rent beyond three years. He also referred to an order passed in Rent Case No,126 of 2008 and stated that in that case the Rent Controller held that he has no jurisdiction to order for arrears of rent beyond the period of three years, however, he did not apply the same principle in these rent cases. According to him, the learned Rent .Controller did not appreciate properly the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and did not take into consideration the case-law relied upon by his counsel. He prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
7. ' On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No,1/landlord stated that the learned Rent Controller was fully justified in passing the impugned order as the appellant/tenant failed to comply with tentative rent order. He also stated that once the tentative rent order was passed by the learned Rent Controller the tenant is bound to comply with the same or challenge the same before the competent forum which was not done by the appellant. He further contended that the impugned order was a restrictive order restraining the respondent from withdrawing the amount of rent till final decision of the rent cases and the rate of rent and question of actual arrears of rent was yet to be determined on the basis of evidence of the parties but the appellant failed to comply with the tentative rent order, therefore, the learned Rent Controller passed the impugned order. He further contended that the Rent Controller while deciding the application under section 17(8) is not supposed to record evidence. He prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
8. ' Under the provisions of section 17(8) the Rent Controller on the application of the landlord and after summary enquiry would determine the arrears of rent and order the tenant to deposit the same and also direct the tenant to deposit future monthly rent regularly until final disposal of the case. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller clearly shows that he had taken into consideration the application filed by the respondent as well as the objections filed by the appellant and thereafter passed the impugned order which is tentative in nature after hearing the parties' advocates and the Rent Controller was not bound to record the evidence of the parties before passing the rent order. Only summary enquiry had to be made by the learned Rent Controller to determine the arrears of rent due, which has been done in this case. Needless to say that once the tentative rent order was passed by the learned Rent Controller, the appellant is bound A to comply with the same and if he is not satisfied with the same he should have challenged the same before the competent forum which was not done by the appellant. In the circumstances, default on the part of the appellant stood established and his defence was rightly struck off. In similar circumstances, in the case reported as Khawaja Muhammad Mughees v. Mrs. Sughra Dadi (2001 SCM R. 2020), the honourable Supreme Court refused to grant leave to the tenant, holding the orders passed by the Rent Controller as well as by the High Court to be lawful.
9. It is a settled principle of law that delay of even a single day in the payment of the rent/deposit of the rent in the court creates valuable right in favour of the landlord and the delay cannot be condoned in the B absence of reliable and cogent reasons for the same. The present case is even on the worse side so far as the appellant is concerned, as he has at all, not deposited the rental amount and failed to comply with the order of the Rent Controller.
10. ' It is also to be noted the tentative rent order passed in the instant case was apparently a restrictive order whereby the respondent/landlord was restrained from withdrawing the amount of rent till final decision of the rent cases and the rate of rent and question of actual arrears of rent was yet to be determined on the basis of evidence of the parties but the appellant failed to comply with the tentative rent order, therefore, the learned Rent Controller had no option but to pass the impugned order.
11. ' For the foregoing reasons, I find no justification to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal having no merits, is dismissed in limine.