1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22- 12-1983 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind at Karachi in F. R. A. No, 110 of 1982.
2. ' The facts briefly are that the petitioner was a tenant of a residential premises situate in North Nazimabad Karachi, owned by one Bashir Ahmad. The latter sold the same on 31-3-1980 to Mst.
3. Zubeda Khanam, the respondent herein. She, thereafter, caused a statutory notice dated 26-5- 1980 to be served on the petitioner, wherein she informed him of the purchase of the aforesaid property by her and also informed that she wanted him to vacate the premises as she wanted the property for her own use and residence. However, as the petitioner did not comply with the notice, she filed art ejectment proceeding against him and the learned Rent Controller, by his order dated 23-12-1981, ordered his ejectment. The petitioner, thereupon, filed an appeal before the High Court of Sind at Karachi and while admitting the appeal to regular hearing granted an ad interim stay which was, subsequently, confirmed on 13-3-1983, subject to deposit of arrears of rent and future rent in Court on the following terms :- "1, accordingly, while confirming the stay direct the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs, 28,000 as arrears of rent upto February, 1983 in Court within six weeks from today. I further direct the appellant to continue to deposit monthly rent at the rate of Rs, 800 per month from 1-3-1983 before 10th of the following month. The stay application is disposed of on the above terms."
4. ' In alleged compliance with the order, the petitioner sought to deposit with the Naazir of the High Court an amount of Rs, 28,000 on 24-4-1983, as also a sum of Rs, 800 towards the monthly rent of the month of March, 1983. While the Naazir was prepared to accept the deposit of Rs, 28,000 being within six weeks of the date of the order but refused to accept the deposit towards the monthly rent on the ground that the same was liable to be deposited by the 10th April, 1983 in terms of the orders of the Court referred to above.
5. ' The petitioner, therefore, moved an application for permission to deposit the rent of March, 1983 after condonation of the delay. This prayer was allowed, subject to all just exceptions. But since the respondent raised an objection to the said deposit and pleaded that the Court should strike off the defence of the petitioner, the application for extension of time in the deposit of the monthly rent, which had been allowed, subject to all just exceptions, was taken up for hearing in the presence of both the parties, ' After hearing the parties, the learned Judge was of the view that where an appellate authority orders the deposit of the rent and prescribes the terms therefor and the appellant thereafter, fails to comply with the said order, the appellate authority, in such an eventuality, would be obliged to vacate the stay order. In this case, as the appellate authority having specified the terms, on which the arrears of the rent and as also the monthly rent was to be deposited, the appellant (before the appellate authority) would be entitled to continuance of the stay order only if he complied with the terms of the order granting stay. Since the petitioner herein had failed to do so, he (the learned Judge) felt obliged to vacate the stay order. He ordered accordingly by his order dated 22-12-1983.
6. This petition is directed against the said order.
7. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nasim A. Farooqi, as well as Mr. Talmiz Burney, Advocate for the respondent, who appeared in this Court in support of the Caveat lodged by the respondent.
8. ' After having heard the learned counsel for both the sides, we feel that the learned Judge fell in error in importing in this case the principles of the effect of non-compliance with the terms on which the stay has been granted under subsection (2) of section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. However, as the stay was granted in this case while admitting an appeal, the considerations were entirely different. The powers of the appellate authority under subsection (2) of section 21 are conferred in the following terms :- "Section 21(2).-The appellate authority may pending the final disposal of the appeal, grant injunction staying further proceedings or action on the order of the Controller."
9. This provision shows that the powers of the appellate authority under section 21(i) are very wide and untramelled by any restrictions and no penalty has been provided for the non-compliance with the conditions on which any order of stay is granted. Thus, there is no limitation on the High Court to modify or alter any order which has been passed under this provision on a just cause being shown in that behalf. The petitioner herein had given some reason for not complying with it, namely, that he considered that both the arrears of rent and the monthly rent was to be paid within six weeks and, therefore, he had tendered both the amounts on 24-4-1983. His impression that even the monthly rent was to be paid within six weeks was obviously incorrect but the learned Judge has not considered whether this error could be excused and the time extended for payment of the monthly rent on the assumption that he had no discretion to do so, in that the noncompliance of the order passed on 13-3-1983 was liable to result in vacation of the stay order itself. This assumption appears to be erroneous in law.
10. ' We would, therefore, convert this petition into an appeal and allow, it, set aside the order dated 22-12-1983 passed by a learned Single Judge and remand the case back to him to consider the application of the appellant for condonation of delay in depositing the current rent, on its merits.
11. ' We would request the learned Judge in the High Court to dispose of the aforesaid petition if possible, within one month and if convenient to dispose of the main appeal on the same date.
12. ' This appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.