ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---This constitution petition has been directed against the judgment dated 13.02.2014 passed by learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi (East) in F.R.A. No.71 of 2013 upholding the order dated 22.7.2013 passed by IXth-Rent Controller, Karachi (East) in Rent Case No.125 of 2013, whereby the application filed by the Respondent No.1 under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter will be referred as the Ordinance), was allowed with direction to the petitioner to vacate And hand over possession of Flat No.XL-114, first floor Lakhany Excellency Survey No.528, Block 13-D, Gulshan-e-Iqbal (demised premises) to the respondent No.1 within sixty (60) days.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Rent Application No.125 of 2013 was filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner in respect of premises in question on the grounds of default in payment of rent from July, 2011 to April, 2013 at the rate of Rs.18.000/- per month And personal bona fide use.
3. During the pendency of the rent application, respondent No.1 also moved An application under section 16(1) of the Ordinance for directing the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent of the aforesaid period and further monthly rent at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per month.
4. The petitioner filed objections claiming that he had paid the rent for the month of February, 2013 and after that he sent the rent through money order for the month of March, 2013, but the same was refused by Respondent No.1 And further stated that he was ready to deposit the future rent of the premises in question to the rent controller.
5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Rent Controller passed an order dated 22.05.2013, the conclusion para of the said order is reproduced here under:- "I have carefully gone through the record and found that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted but the period of rent between them is disputed. According to applicant, the opponent paid rent upto June, 2011 and thereafter failed to pay the same as well as also failed to pay maintenance charges from February, 2013 till date Rs.2300/-per month. His plea is that the rent for the month of February, 2013 was duly received by applicant by cheque and thereafter he sent rent through money order for the month of March, 2013, but the sane was refused. The plea of the learned counsel is that applicant is in habit of not issuing the rent receipts.
However, he is ready to deposit the future rent of the premises in question. The opponent also challenged the tenancy agreement dated 15.05.2010. All these controversies between the parties require evidence.
In view of above circumstances, present application is allowed. The opponent is directed to deposit arrears of rent from July, 2011 till May, 2013 at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per month in respect of Plat No.XL-114, first floor, Lakhany Excellency, Survey No.528, Block 13- D, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi within thirty days of this order. He is also directed to deposit future monthly rent at the same rate in this Court on or before 10th of each calendar month. The rent amount if any, deposited by opponent in MRC No. 77/2013 will be adjustable in his case. The opponent is also directed to pay maintenance charges Rs.2300/- per months as well as utility bills of the premises in question upto date and deposit the receipts in this case. Since rent for the period of July, 2011 to February, 2013 is disputed in this case, therefore, applicant cannot withdraw the same till disposal of the case."
6. The above order was not complied with by the petitioner resultantly respondent No.1 filed An application under section 16(2) of the Ordinance. The trial court after hearing both the parties allowed the said application with the observations that the petitioner committed default in complying with the order of the Court, consequently his defence was strike off And he was directed to vacate the premises in question within sixty (60) days. The said order was assailed in FRA No.71 of 2013 And the learned IIIrd. Additional District Judge, Karachi (East) vide impugned judgment dismissed the said FRA of the petitioner And maintained the order of Rent Controller. Both decisions are impugned in this petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. They agreed for converting the stage of this case from katcha peshi to regular hearing And its final disposal accordingly.
8. The learned counsel for the petition[ r has contended that there was no willful default in deposit of the rent as the petitioner deposited the rent in MRC And such intimation was given to the trial court by filing statement on the very day of passing of the tentative order. He has further submitted that no enquiry was held under subsection (1) of section 16 of the Ordinance as required by the law.
According to him the rent payable is being deposited in court till date in MRC, therefore it cannot be said to be An irregularity or technical default for which no penal action is required to be taken. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the cases of Muhammad Nawaz v.
Muhammad Hayat (1996 M LD 1895) And Dr. Riaz Ahmed v. Sabir Ali Dhojani (PLD 1994 Kar. 446).
9. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has contended that the petitioner has willfully defaulted in payment of rent And has not complied with the tentative rent order which was passed after hearing both the parties And considering the objections filed by the petitioner And a condition was imposed that the disputed portions of the rent would not be withdrewn by the respondent No.1 thereby to secure the interest of both parties. He has also submitted that deposit of the rent in MRC till date instead of Rent Application No. 125 of 2013, clearly shows non- compliance of the tentative order of the Rent Controller with mala fide intention just to put the landlord under pressure, as such, the Rent Controller was justified in striking off his defence And allowing the rent application. In support of his contentions. learned counsel for respondent No.1 has placed reliance on the cases of Tabassum Iqbal Sheikh v. District and Sessions Judge and others (2007 CLC 546), Fatima Gul v. Saeed Akhtar (PLD 2005 SC 34), M.H. Mussadaq v. Muhammad Zafar lqbal (2004 SCM R 1453) And Mushtaq Hussain v. Muhammad Shafi (1979 SCM R 496).
10. I have given my patience hearing to the arguments advanced at bar And have gone through the record so made available.
11. The relationship of landlord And tenant between the parties is admitted. In the rent application in para-18 respondent No.1 has taken plea that the petitioner is liable to pay rent from July, 2011 to April, 2013 at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per month to which the petitioner has denied in his written objection/statement And claimed to have paid the rent for the month of February, 2013 through cheque, but respondent No.1 being in habit of not issuing receipts, he did not issue rent receipt for said month, hence he sent the rent through money order for the month of March, 2013, but the same was refused by him. So far the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding non-holding of enquiry prior to passing of tentative order is concerned, in fact a summary inquiry was held by the Rent Controller whereby the petitioner/opponent was called to explain as to alleged default And heard the petitioner's counsel so also respondent No. l's counsel which would be sufficient compliance for holding summary inquiry under section 16(1) of the Ordinance And in his order on the said application it has clearly been mentioned that all the controversies between the parties require evidence because no foundation was laid for requiring the Rent Controller to record Any evidence before passing of tentative rent order. Furthermore in the tentative rent order, the Rent Controller has placed a condition that disputed portion of the rent will not be withdrewn by the respondent No.1. Thus the contention of learned counsel for petitioner has no force.
12.As per report of the Nazir referred in the order of the Rent Controller the petitioner failed to comply with the order dated 22.5.2013 passed by the Rent Controller, but rent was deposited in MRC-77/2013. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner deposited the sent for the month of August 2013 after delay of three days for which no proper And cogent reason is offered. As is apparent from the grounds Nos.6 And 7 of this petition, the petitioner is continuously depositing the rent till date in MRC-77/2013 though the petitioner's counsel was present on the day of passing of tentative rent order dated 22.5.2013 And was well aware about the fact of specific direction for depositing of rent in Rent Application No.125 of 2013. For the sake of arguments if it is taken into consideration that the said deposit as due to mistake or error on the part of the petitioner then at least the said error should have been rectified after moving the application under section 16(2), of the Ordinance or even after passing of the final order or at the time of hearing of appeal, but he did not do so. In the case of Tabasum Iqbal Sheikh v. District And Sessions Judge And others (2007 CLC 546), it is held that such deposit in MRC would be nothing but mala fide act just to put the landlord under pressure.
13. With profound respect, the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner has no application so far facts And circumstances of this case are concerned.
14. In view of above discussion, I see no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order And judgment thus do not require interference, therefore, this petition being without merit stands dismissed.