SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J.---By invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to set aside the concurrent findings of both learned lower courts, whereby the order dated 31.5.2014 passed by the learned Rent Controller on application under Section 16(2)
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was upheld by the Appellate Court in FRA No. 110/2014 through judgment pronounced on 24.11.2014.
2.Succinct facts leading to this petition are that the respondent No. 1 has filed application under Section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for eviction of the petitioner from demised premises/House No. B-165, First Floor, Block No. 3 Gulistan-e-Jauhar, Karachi, on the ground of willful default in payment of rent and for personal bona fide requirement as well. The petitioner contested the aforesaid application by filing written statement. During proceedings, respondent No.1/landlady has filed an application dated 13.11.2013 under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, praying therein to direct the petitioner to deposit the arrears of monthly rent of the demised premises as well as future rent of the tenement in the Court. A detail of defaulted arrears amount was also mentioned in it.-On hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court in penultimate paragraph has passed the following tentative order dated 21-4-2014:- <b><i>"In these circumstances, present application is allowed. The opponent is directed to deposit arrears of rent of June, 2010, November, 2010, December, 2010, November, 2011, January, 2013, July, 2013, August 2013, October, 2013 to December, 2013 in respect of House No. 11-165, 1st Floor, Block-3, Gulistan-e-Jauhar, Karachi at the fare of RS.I8.500/- per month within thirty days of this order. Since the said period of rent is disputed, therefore, the applicant cannot withdraw the same till disposal of this case. The opponent is further directed to deposit future monthly rent of premises in question at the rate of Rs.18,500/- per month on or before 10th of each calerear month. He is further directed to pay upto date utility bills and submit paid bills in this case within thirty days."</b></i> 3.Since the petitioner has failed to deposit the arrears, therefore, application under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was filed before the learned Rent Controller, who vide order dated 3 1.5.2014, under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 struck of the defence of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to vacate the tenements within thirty days. Being dis-satisfied by the said order, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal No.110/2014 under section 21 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which was also dismissed vide order 24.11.2014 and against the aforesaid orders the captioned petition has been filed.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5.The section 16(1)&(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is, reproduced here in below:-- "16. <i><b>Arrears of rent.</i></b>---(1) <i>Where a case for eviction of the tenant has been filed, the Controller shall, on application by the landlord and after such summary inquiry as he deems fit to make, determine the arrears of the rent due and order the tenant to deposit the same within such period as the Controller may fix in this behalf and further direct the tenant to deposit monthly rent regularly on or before the tenth of every month, until final disposal of the case.
Provided that the Controller may direct that the arrears of rent and approximate rent may be paid to the landlord through pay order or by other mode agreed to by the parties or as directed by the Controller.
(2) Where the tenant has failed to deposit the arrears of rent or to pay monthly rent under subsection (I), his defence shall be struck off and the landlord shall be put into possession of the premises within such period as may be specified by the Controller in the order made in this behalf.</i> 6.Learned counsel for petitioner argued that a defective rent order under the provisions of section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is not necessarily required to be complied with and it is also admitted by the respondent No.1/applicant that he had been receiving monthly rent in August, 2012 (After July, 2012) and rent in February 2013 (after January 2013) and in September 2013 (After July & August 2013) and at that time of receiving above said rent there had been no hesitation on the part of respondent No. 1, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable In law. To support his contention learned counsel for the petitioner placed his reliance upon the reported judgment announced in a First Rent Appeal in the case of Lion Paper Industries (Pvt.) Limited v. Mrs. Sabiha Rizwan (2001 YLR 3014) Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that it is well settled principle of law which is reported in Nazar Hussain and another v. 1st Additonal District Judge, Karachi (East) & 2 others (2008 CLC 1415) that a person who did not obey order of the Court, had no right to remain present before the court and to contest the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner with mala fide intention, deliberately neglected to comply the order of the trial court and has become defaulter, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court on the application under section 16(2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is proper, legal, justified and speaking one. To support his contentions learned counsel placed his reliance upon the cases of Muhammad Fayaz v. Mrs. Wahida Salahuddin and 2 others (2(509 MLD 186), Syed Hamad Baqar Rizvi v. Nafeesul Hasan Jafri (1999 CLC 2002), Mst. Shagufta Nasir and another v. Abid Hussain and 2 others (2014 M LD 812), Mubashir Hussain Shah v. 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge Karachi-East and 2 others (2010 CLC 346), Mst. Fauzia Irfan v. Mst. Sabeeha lshrat and 2 others (2008 CLC 1087) and Muhammad Rafique v. Muhammad Rafique and others (2008 CLC 387).
8. There is no cavil with the legal proposition that under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 the Rent Controller has to make summary enquiry and to pass tentative rent order directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent as well as future rent.
Admittedly, both orders under section 16(1) & 16(2) of the Ordinance 1979 were passed after affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides with the observation in order dated 21.4.2014 that <i><b>"Since the said period of rent is disputed, therefore, the applicant cannot withdraw the same till disposal of the case." </i></b>The learned trial court has further directed the opponent to deposit future monthly rent of premises in question at the rate of R. 18,500/- per month on or before 10th of each calendar month and to pay upto date utility bills and submit paid bills in the case within thirty days. Subsequent order 31.5.2014, passed on application under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 shows that petitioner has failed to deposit the rent and also to clear utility charges within the stipulated period as directed by the learned rent controller. The Appellate Court in its elaborate order dated 24.11.2014 has correctly observed that the order passed by the learned rent controller has specific stipulation as to the deposit of future monthly rent on or before 10th of each subsequent month and the appellant/petitioner remained failed to comply the same as the tenant was duty bound to pay rent to the landlady for the subject premises he has been enjoying the possession whereof on the basis of admitted tenancy relationship.
9. Suffice is to say that there is no illegality or gross irregularity and infirmity in the concurrent findings of both learned lower courts; more particularly, the impugned orders are not passed without jurisdiction. It is also an admitted fact that no evidence was required to be recorded at the time of passing the tentative rent order under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which was binding force on the petitioner. I found no occasion and justification to interfere in the concurrent findings of both Courts below in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Resultantly, the captioned petition is dismissed with costs, having no merits for consideration.