This is an appeal under section 21(2) of the Sind. Rented Premises Ordi--nance, 1979 against the order of the Rent Controller, Karachi dated 21st May, 1981.
2. The appellant in this appeal is tenant of the respondent in the premises in dispute. The respondent filed ejectment proceeding under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, against the appellant before the learned Rent Controller in the year 1975. During the proceedings the learned Rent Controller on 3-4-1976 passed a tentative order under section 13(6) of the said Ordinance directing the appellant to deposit arrears of rent before 15th of May 1976, and continue to deposit future rent before 15th of each month. The appellant complied with this order up to July 1980 and thereafter stopped all together deposits of monthly rent. Hence an application was moved by the respondent for striking of the defence of the appellant under section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 as amended by the Sind Rented Premises (Amendment)
Ordinance, 1980. Learned Rent Controller, after hearing of the parties, was satisfied that the appellant has failed to comply with the tentative order of deposit of rent dated 3-4-1976 and as such was liable to suffer consequences, that is, his defence was liable to be struck of and consequently struck of his defence and directed him, by the impugned order, to hand over possession of the premises in dispute to the Respondent within a month. Hence this appeal.
3. The only point that Mr. Rehmat Ellahi, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged in support of the appeal is that the tentative order was passed under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the repealed Ordinance) which was repealed on 21-11- 1979 by the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 ;hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance of 1979).
Hence the order which was passed under the repealed Ordinance could not have been enforced under the Ordinance of 1979. The learned counsel has also referred to section 27 of the Ordinance of 1979 which was amended by Sind Ordinance No. 11 of 1980 on 21-1-1980, whereby sub--section
(3) was added to section 27 which is to the following effect :----------
(3) All other cases instituted under the Ordinance mentioned in sub--section (1) and which immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance were pending before a Controller shall, notwithstanding any orders made otherwise by the Controller, be continued and disposed in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and any proceedings taken, or orders made in any such cases as aforesaid shall for all pur--poses have effect as proceedings taken or orders made- under this Ordinance."
It has been argued that in spite of the above provision under section 27(3) of the Ordinance of 1979, regarding saving of all orders passed under the repealed Ordinance, the tentative order which was passed under section 13(6) of the repealed Ordinance, is not capable of being executed under section 27(3) of the Ordinance of 79. He has further referred to the section regarding deposit of tentative order under Ordinance of 1979, which is section 16(2), and has submitted that this section under which a direction is given by the Rent Controller to deposit monthly rent, is not similar in content to the correspond--ing section of the repealed Ordinance, 1959, that is, section 13(6).
According to section 16(2) the monthly rent is to be deposited on 10th of every month, whereas according to section 13(6) of the repealed Ordinance the monthly rent is to be deposited before the 15th of every month. It is, therefore, argued that the order passed under section 13(6) cannot be treated as an order under section 16(2) of the Ordinance of 1979 nor can it be executed under section 27(3) thereof.
4. In support of this submission the learned counsel has relied upon an unreported decision of this Court given in First Rent Appeal No. 314/80 in which it was held by a learned Single Judge of this Court that a fresh order under section 16(2) for deposit of arrears of rent should have been passed by the learned Rent Controller under Ordinance of 1979 before the tenant could be held liable to suffer the consequences of the default in respect of an order which was passed under section 13(6) of the repealed Ordinance. This case is clearly distinguishable from the present case inasmuch as the default in the above case was committed before subsection (3) was added to section 27 of by the amending Ordinance No: II of 1980 and as there was no provision for treating an order passed under the repealed law as an order under the present law nor there was any provision for executing the order passed under the repealed law as an order under the present law.
5. In the present case the default was' committed by the appellant not only after coming into force of the Ordinance of 1979 but also, after 21-1-1980 when the subsection (3) was added to section 27.
According to categorical and unambiguous language of section 27(3) every order which was passed under the repealed Ordinance is to be treated and executed as if it was an order passed under the Ordinance of 1979. Hence the tentative order for deposit of rent passed under section 13(6) of the repealed Ordinance, has been saved by section 27(3) of the Ordinance of 1979 and shall be treated as if ii was an order under this Ordinance and was passed under the corresponding section of the present Ordinance that is section 16(2) which also provided for deposit of tentative rent, and liability of the defence being struck of in case of default. T he fact that the date for deposit of monthly rent as specified in section 13(6) of repealed Ordinance is different from the date specified in section 16(2) of the present Ordinance is immaterial, so far as the responsibility of the tenant to deposit rent for each month is concerned. He shall not- be committing any default if he deposited rent on 15th of each month instead of 10th in the absence of a fresh order under section 16(2) of the Ordinance of 1979 having been passed by the learned Controller. His liability to deposit rent shall not be extinguished simply for the fact that the old Ordinance has been repealed by the new Ordinance of 1979 and no fresh tentative order has been made by the learned Rent Controller. In the absence of a fresh tentative order under section 16(2) of the Ordinance of 1979, the tenant shall have the option to deposit rent either before 10th of every month or before 15th of every month. Their being no material conflict in the two corresponding provisions of section 13(6) of the repealed Ordinance and section 16(2) of the new Ordinance, it cannot be argued that the order passed under the repealed Ordinance is not capable of being treated or executed as an order under the Ordinance of 1979, in spite of the saving pro--visions contained in section 27(3). Consequently the tenant, that is, the present appellant must be held to have made wilful and gross default in complying with the order of depositing monthly tentative rent from the month of July 1980, onwards, and as such the default committed in compliance of the order under section 13(6) of the repealed Ordinance, shall be treated as default under section 16(2) of the Ordinance, 1979 read with section 27(3) thereof.
7. He was, therefore, rightly held by the learned Rent Controller to be a defaulter and his defence was rightly struck of. This appeal has no sub-stance and, therefore, dismissed with costs.