' ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.---Through this Constitutional Petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated 30-5-2013, passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi East, whereby she dismissed the F.R.A. No,28 of 2013, filed by the petitioners against the order dated 31-1-2013, passed by the learned IVth Rent Controller, Karachi East, allowing application under section 16(2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, filed by the respondent No,1 and ordering ejectment of the petitioners from the demised premises.
2. Briefly facts of the case, relevant for the purpose of disposing of this petition, are that the petitioners are tenants of respondent at the monthly rent of Rs,7400 per month. It appears from the record that respondent No,1 filed ejectment application under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against petitioners/tenants in the Court of IVth Rent Controller Karachi East. During proceeding of the case, the respondent No,1 filed an application under section 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and on 13-11-2012 the trial Court after hearing the parties passed tentative rent order, whereby directing the petitioners (tenants) to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs,7400 per month total amounting to Rs,1,58,800 in the rent case within 30 days of passing of said order. As per record, the petitioners (tenants) did not comply the tentative rent order passed by trial Court, hence their defence was struck off vide order dated 31-1-2013, resultantly ejectment application filed by respondent No,1 was allowed and petitioners (tenants) were directed to vacate the premises in question and hand over its vacant physical possession to respondent No,1 within 60 days.
3. Heard parties advocates and perused the record with due care.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the both the two Courts below did not consider the real facts while passing the impugned orders/judgment that the petitioners never became defaulter in payment of monthly rent and depositing the same in Court regularly. She further contended that there was no dispute over the rent but impugned orders passed in hasty manner and trial Court has not provided the petitioners for fair opportunity to contest their case on merit by recording evidence to prove the innocence of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of her arguments has relied upon the case law reported in 2000 SCM R 556.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,1 has fully supported the impugned orders/judgment of the two Courts below and stated that since there are concurrent findings of the two Courts below against the petitioners on the issue of non-compliance of tentative rent order passed by learned Rent Controller which was maintained by the appellate Court and it has not been shown that any findings is against the record. Learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has further submitted that trial Court and learned appellate Court has given cogent reasons in support of their findings and impugned orders/judgment do not call for any interference by this Court and has prayed that petition may be dismissed. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case-law reported as Noor Muhammad and another v. Mehdi (1986 CLC 90) and Nazar Hussain v.
1st Additional District Judge, Karachi (East) (2008 CLC 1415).
6. After hearing the parties' advocates, and perusal of record it reveals that tentative rent order was passed by the learned IV Rent Controller, Karachi East vide her order dated 13-11-2012 directing to the petitioners (tenants) to deposit the arrears of rent total amounting to Rs,1,58,800 within 30 days in present rent case. Admittedly, the tentative rent order has not been complied by the petitioners.
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. The petitioners have failed to comply with the order of the Rent Controller, therefore, there was every justification with the Rent Controller to strike off the defence of the petitioners (tenants) and no exception can be taken to that order of Rent Controller. The order passed by the learned appellate Court is also in accordance with law, hence the orders of two Court below under the fact and circumstances of the case do not warrant any interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The case-law cited by the petitioners has no relevancy with the facts of this case. Finding no merits in this petition, I hereby dismiss the same with no order as to costs along with listed application. However, under the circumstances of this case, the petitioners are old tenants, therefore, they are allowed four (4) months' time to vacate the premises in question and handover its vacant physical possession to respondent No,1 subject to payment of rent.
7. This petition was dismissed along with listed application by me by my short order announced in open Court on 29-1-2014. These are the detailed reasons for the same.