1. ' Heard Mr. Nabi Raza, Advocate for the appellant. The defence of the appellant had been struck off by the Rent Controller on 16th March, 1982 on the ground that the appellant had failed to comply with the Order of deposit of rent made on 5th December,1981 the appellant had been directed to withdraw the amount deposited by him in Miscellaneous Application No,5611 of 1979 which he had deposited in the wrong name of Zafar. The appellant was further directed to deposit the arrears of Rs,1,820 from 1st October,1979 to 30th November,1981 in Court by 18th January, 1982. He was further directed to deposit rent for December,1981 at Rs,70 per month on or before 10th January,1982. It appears that the appellant did not withdraw the amount deposited by him in Miscellaneous Application No,5611 of 79 which he had deposited in the wrong name of Zafar and consequently the appellant failed to deposit Rs,1,820 in Court by 18th January, 1982. He did not even deposit the rent for December,1981 by 10th January,1982.
2. ' Mr.Nabi Raza contended that the rent deposited in Miscellaneous Application No,5611 of 79 ought to have been treated as the deposit of rent by the applicant in Court because the opponent in the application was M.Zafar who was the husband as well as General Attorney of Mst. Mubina Begum the present respondent. He submitted that the Rent Controller was not justified in not treating the rent deposited in Court. He further submitted that the appellant had deposited Rs,70 in the same Miscellaneous Application No,5611 of 79 on 7th December,1981 and another sum of Rs,70 in the same Miscellaneous Case on 10th January, 1982. He, therefore, submitted that the Rent Controller has taken too technical and narrow view of the provision of default and hence the Order dated 5th December,1981 was not in accordance with law and consequently the final order, dated 16th June, 1982 was also vitiated because the Rent Controller had failed to treat the rent deposited in the name of Zafar as a proper deposit. Mr.Abdul Karim Siddiqui relied upon 1982 SCMR 920 where a default on account of remitting of rent on wrong address was treated as one caused by negligence of the tenant which could have been avoided if proper care had been taken. He also relied upon PLD 1980 SC 9 where deposit of rent by the tenant in the names of a large body of persons namely heirs of landlord's father was not considered as a proper deposit of rent as ;uch the same was not inconfirmity with the Rent Controller's order and it was regarded as deliberate and contumacious.
3. ' The very reading of the order dated 5th December,1981 shows that the Rent Controller had made a definite direction to the appellant to withdraw the rent from Miscellaneous 5611 of 79 which he had deposited in the wrong name, and had given sufficient time to the appellant from 5th December,1981 to 18th January,1982 to do the needful. There is nothing wrong in the order of the Rent Controller. It was a fair and reasonable order and the appellant should have complied with the same, but he failed to do so. Not only that he had failed to withdraw the rent from Miscellaneous 5611 of 79 and deposit the same in the name of the present respondent in proper proceedings, but he further adopted a very unreasonable and unfair attitude by continuing to deposit the rent of December,1981 in the same Miscellaneous proceedings 5611 of 79 on 7th December,1981 and then again doing the same on 10th January,1982. To say the least the appellant had continued to act under his own will and incomplete disregard and defiance of the order of the Rent Controller dated 5th December, 1981.
4. Even if there was some initial justification for deposit of rent in the name of Zafar who is the husband of the present respondent still that justification was completely gone after the order passed by the Rent Controller on 5th December,1981. The result is that it was not a mere technical non-compliance with the order of the Rent Controller dated 5th December,1981 but a contumacious insistence on the part of the appellant that he will continue to do as he liked in spite of the order of the Rent Controller. This appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
5. C.M.A. 111/83 automatically stands granted now.