1. ' Appellant above-named, being aggrieved by order dated 10th April, 1982 of the learned XIIth Rent Controller, in Rent Case No, 1464/74, by which respondent No, I's application under section 13(6) of Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was allowed and the defence of the appellant was struck off and the appellant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises in his occupation to the respondent No, 1, has preferred the above appeal, on the facts and grounds mentioned in the memo. Of appeal.
2. ' The learned Advocate for the appellant in support of the above appeal submitted, that there was no wilful default on the part of the appellant, which is evident from the statements of the witnesses produced by the appellant before the learned trial Court and consequently the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller (XII), Karachi, cannot be sustained.
3. ' The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent on the other hand submitted, that there was a clear default in respect of payment of rents for the months of September, 1976 and February 1977 which is evident both from Nazir's report as well as statement of the witnesses produced by the appellant. The learned Advocate for the respondent further submitted, that even if the appellant's contention is accepted, then too the negligence of the Advocate of the appellant would not come to the rescue of the appellant and the default committed by the appellant would amount to wilful default within the meaning of section 13 (6) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
4. ' I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the R & P of the learned trial Court as well as impugned order.
5. It is admitted position, that rent for the month of September 76, was not deposited on or before 15th October 1976 and similarly rent for the month of February, 1977 was not deposited on or before 15th March, 1977. The only explanation given by the appellant was, that they used to send such rents to their Advocates M/s Mansoorul Arfin & Co., who used to deposit the same in Court and in support of this, appellant examined Mr. Mansoorul Arfin Advocate, who however denied knowledge of Exhs. 16, 17, II, 10 and 7, and Exh. 7-A produced by appellant in support of their contentions. I have carefully gone through the statement of Mr. Arfin. I am afraid his statement does not support even the contentions of the appellant, for alleged delay in payment of the rents for defaulted months. It is clear from Nazir s report, that appellants after depositing rents regularly up to August, 1976, failed to deposit future rents in accordance with the tentative orders of the learned Rent Controller. In view of all these facts on record, I see no reason to disagree with the finding of the learned Rent Controller, that appellant committed default in payment of rents for months of September, 1976 and February, 1977, at least, in accordance with tentative rent order.
6. ' Therefore, I find no merits in the above appeal which is consequently dismissed with costs.
7. However, I allow four months time to the appellants from 1-3-1983 to vacate the premises in their occupation and hand over its vacant possession to the respondents on or before 1st July, 1983, provided appellants continue to deposit the rents for said period in accordance with the tentative rent order regularly and punctually.