1. ' This second rent appeal is directed against the order of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 30th November, 1978. The IInd Additional District Judge, acting as the first appellate authority under the provisions of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, reversed the findings of the Rent Controller, granting ejectment of the respondent on the ground of default and dismissed the rent application.
2. ' The admitted position in the case is that at the time of institution of rent case, rent was due from October, 1974, to Janttary, 1975. It was contended before the Controller that the rent was remitted for the defaulte months by money order. Although it was not proved in the evident: that rent was sent by money order but the Controller on assumption that the rent was remitted as alleged found that it was sent after the expiry of 6t days period and accordingly ordered the eviction of respondent from the premises. The first appellate authority, however took the view that it was case of a solitary default and, therefore, in view of judgment reported I PLD 1976 Lah. 152 the Rent Controller should have exercised the discretion in favour of respondent. Mr. G. M. Qureshi, the learned counsel for the, respondent supported the order of the first appellate authority on the reasoning given in the impugned order. I have gone through the evidence in the case and found that the appellant in his cross-examination had denied that the rent for the disputed month was remitted by money order which he refuse. The appellant also denied in cross-examination that he used to collet rent in lump sum for 5 to 6 months at a time. No evidence was led I rebuttal by the respondent. In these circumstances the Rent Controller rightly held that the respondent committed default in payment of rent an ordered his ejectment. The reversal of the finding of the Rent Controller by the first appellate Court was, therefore, not justified. The authority PLD 1976 Lab. 132 referred by the first Appellate Court in its order ha no application to the facts of the present case. I accordingly accept this appeal, reverse the order of Ist appellate authority and restore the order o Rent Controller but grant 4 months time to respondent to vacate the premise subject to the condition that the appellant shall continue to deposit monthly rent in Court in accordance with the direction of the Rent Controller. I will, however, make no order as to costs,