' Rent Case No, 2331 of 1976 was filed by the respondent/landlord against the appellant/tenant for ejectment. A tentative rent order was passed by the Rent Controller on 11th July, 1977. As default had been committed in the deposit of rent, the respondent moved an application for striking of the defence of the appellant. By the impugned order, dated 5th November, 1979, the said application was granted by the learned Rent Controller striking of the defence of the appellant who was ordered to be ejected. The appellant/tenant has come in appeal before this Court under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the order of ejectment. I have heard Mr. Abdul Fatah. Memon, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
2. Mr. Abdul Fatah Memon, Advocate very fairly and frankly conceded that there was a default in the deposit of rent. However, it was contended by him that the default was neither wilful nor negligent nor intentional. In this case the appellant/tenant had gone to Iran and had appointed his son as his attorney. According to the learned counsel, the appellant was detained in Iran and the son of the appellant who was also his attorney was ill and as such default had taken place in the deposit of rent, ordered by the tentative rent order of the learned Rent Controller. Learned counsel relied upon a reported judgment of Mr. Justice Saleem Akhtar in the case of Ghulam Husain Malik v.
Ghulam Dastagir Khan (1).
3. I find no merit in this appeal. The nature of illness of the attorney/ son of the appellant was not disclosed. A bare statement on behalf of the tenant that the attorney of the tenant was ill and as such the rent could not be deposited and a default took place is not sufficient for condoning the default. Nature of illness has to be disclosed and established in order to enable the Rent Controller to decide whether illness was such that the tenant or his attorney could not deposit the rent with the Rent. Controller within time. It has also to be established that there was no other person available who could have deposited the rent within time. In the instant case in such pleas were taken. As observed earlier, the only plea taken on behal of the appellant was that the attorney of the appellant was ill. The authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not support his contention that in the facts and circumstances of this case a case for condonation had been made out. It was not the defence of the appellant that he or his attorney was not aware of the passing of the tentative rent order. In fact rent had been deposited on several occasions by or on behalf of the appellant with the Rent Controller pursuant to the tentative rent order. The conclusion that can be drawn from these facts is that the appellant and B his attorney were aware of the tentative rent order and its implication, nonetheless rent was not deposited in time and default was committed. There is, therefore, a conscious default on the part of the appellant.
4. No case for interference has been made out. F. R. A. No, 7 of 1979 is dismissed with costs. However, with the consent of Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, learned counsel for the respondent, time if granted to the appellant till 29th February, 1984 to vacate the premises, subject to the regular deposit of rent by the appellant.
(1) 1983 CLC 1520