' This Fist Rent Appeal is filed against impugned order, dated 15th December, 1982 passed by IX Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi on an application under section 16 (2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Ordinance) whereby defence of appellant/tenant has been struck off on account of non-compliance with the tentative rent order.
' Main grievances of the appellant are that he was not heard when the tentative rent order was passed and subsequently when the order of striking off defence was passed, objections filed by him were not considered and no evidence was recorded for fixing the amount of arrears. It was further contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that appellant came to know about the impugned order, on 13th February, 1983 as such appeal filed by him on 15th February, 1983 was within time. Perusal of record of the Rent Controller shows that appellant had participated in the proceedings and tentative rent order was passed on 2nd July, 1981. On the preceding date i. e., 26th May, 1981 Advocates of both parties were present before the learned Rent Controller when the hearing of application under section 16 (l) of the said Ordinance was adjourned to 2nd July, 1981. This clearly indicates that the next date was in the knowledge of the Advocates of both parties and the appellant cannot take the cover that he did not know about the proceedings fixed on the next date. On the next date i. e. 2nd July, 1981 tentative rent order was passed and none was present on behalf of appellant before the learned Rent Controller. No intimation was given to the learned Rent Controller by the appellant nor any request was made for adjournment either by the counsel or by the appellant himself. The learned Rent Controller disposed off the application under section 16 (1) of the said Ordinance after taking into consideration objections filed by the appellant.
In the objections rate of rent was not disputed and has been admitted to be Rs, 500 P. M. Plea was taken by the appellant in the objections that rent was paid by him upto August, 1980 but no rent receipts were produced to show that rent was paid upto that period. In these circumstances the learned Rent Controller passed tentative rent order with directions to the appellant to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs, 500 per mensum from April, 1980 to June, 1981 with the Nazir of the Court and future from July, 1981 on or before 10th of each succeeding month. There is also direction in the tentative rent order that respondent shall not withdraw rent for the period from April, 1980 to August, 198Q till further orders from the learned Rent Controller. In these circumstances the contention that the tentative rent order was passed ex parte has no force at all. The date on which the tentative rent order was passed was known to the Advocate for the appellant and no attempt was made by the appellant to appear on that date nor any attempt was made to apply for adjournment. In the circumstances no exception can be taken to the passing of tentative rent order. Furthemore, this tentative rent order has been complied with by the appellant inasmuch as arrears have been deposited within the stipulated time. Not only that but current rent was also deposited for some months and there were intermittent defaults such as appellant has failed to deposit the rent for August, 1981 and September, 1981 and then November, 1981.
3. Thereafter an application was filed under section 16 (2) of the said Ordinance for striking off defence and notice was issued to the appellant and the report of the Nazir was called. Appellant filed objections, in which it is stated that appellant came to know subsequently about the passing of tentative rent order and he had complied with part of it and further it is stated therein that amount of disputed arrears could not be deposited owing to bona fide mistake. The learned Rent Controller in the impugned order has clarified that appellant himself had made a mistake and in fact he had deposited all the arrears in time but could not deposit current rent for some months which has been stated above. There is no clear cut explanation in the objections as to why current rent was not deposited in compliance with the tentative rent order.
4. It also appears from the record that application for striking off defence was filed on 24th November, 1981 on which notice was issued to the appellant and he filed objections on 21st August, 1982. Order Sheet of this date in the record of the lower Court shows that Advocates for both parties were present and objections were filed by the appellant and copy was supplied to the Advocate for the respondent and the hearing was put off to 9th September, 1982. On this date Advocates for both parties were present and made a joint request which was granted and with consent the matter was put off to 13th September, 1982.. On 13th September, 1982 counsel for respondent was present but appellant was called absent and the hearing was put off to 16th October, 1982. On this date counsel for respondent was present but appellant was absent and the matter was adjourned to 13th November, 1982. On this date counsel for respondent was present, his arguments were heard and since counsel for the appellant was not present the hearing was put off to 30th November, 1982 for arguments of counsel for appellant. Case diary of that date shows that counsel for appellant appeared before the learned Rent Controller late on that date and was informed about the next date of hearing. On 30th November, 1982, Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was put off to 5th December, 1982. On that date final order was passed as none was present. It appears from the record of the Order Sheet as stated above that the appellant and his counsel were lax in attending the Court on the dates of hearing. The impugned order shows that the objections filed by the appellant were duly considered. In these circumstances, it is not open to the appellant to say that these orders were passed behind his back and he has no knowledge of the dates for hearing. A He could easily have kept track and would have appeared on the relevant dates when the tentative rent order and the order striking off defence were passed. In any case on both these occasions objections filed, by the appellant were duly considered.
For the facts and reasons stated above, it is not open to appellant to claim that limitation will run from the date of knowledge and no exceptions can be taken to the impugned order which is