' This appeal is directed against the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, Karachi on 26-1-1982 on the ground that the tenant had committed default in the payment of rent. The rent was claimed to be in arrears from January, 1976 and it was further claimed in the ejectment application that the premises have been sublet by the tenant to some one else. The tenant resisted the ejectment application and stated that no default in the payment of rent had been made. It was also stated that the tenant had sent money order in October, 1977 but it had been refused and that the rent had also been deposited in Misc. Rent proceedings in October, 1977 because the landlord had demanded enhanced rent at Rs, 400 per month. The respondent examined himself in support of his case and he was cross-examined where he admitted that he had refused to accept the money order sent. On Rent Case He also accepted that he had received notice of Misc. Case No, 3671/76 in October, 1977. One Shakir Ali Khan who is real brother of Sabir All Khan who in his turn is brother-in-law of the appellant Sarwar Ali Khan filed his affidavit and stated that Sabir All Khan resides with his brother-in-law right from the beginning. He also stated in cross-examination that he did not know if the rent for two years was recovered through D.W. Application No, 380/77 in the Small Causes Court. He did not produce any receipt of rent issued by the respondent nor did he say if any rent had been paid by him to the respondent. He had only stated in his affidavit that Sarwar AU Khan had never committed any default but Sarwar Ali Khan never appeared in the case.
In cross-examination he had again repeated that no default had been committed but he did not elaborate the same. The position therefore, is that the statement of respondent that the rent had not been paid since January, 1976 remains unrequited.
2. The only ground taken by Mr. Raza Abbas Naqvi is that respondent had himself admitted in cross-examination that he had refused money order sent to him in October, 1977 and that he had also received notice in October, 1977 that Misc. rent proceedings had been filed for deposit of rent by the appellant, Mr. Raza Abbas, therefore, submitted that the respondent had come to the Court with unclean hands by concealing all these facts in his rent application. Whatsoever the nature of concealment may be one does not know because in the rent application I find that in the documents relied upon the applicant has referred to the Court proceedings and evidently the Misc. rent case and D.W. proceedings are the only Court proceedings that took place between the parties. The appellant has stated in his written statement that the respondent had filed D.W.
Application No, 380/1977 on 1-11-1977 claiming rent from 1st November, 1976 to 31st October, 1977 for 12 months.
3. The factum of non-payment of rent from November, 1976 till November, 1977 has almost gone unchallenged. The only question that has to be considered by me is whether the sending of money order in October, 1977 saves the appellant from the result of non-payment of rent from January, 1976 till the date of the money order and whether the deposit of rent in Miscellaneous rent proceedings in October, 1977 has again the same effect or not. It may be pertinent to note here that the appellant has not produced in Court the money order sent by him to the respondent. Nor has he stated in his written statement as to for how much amount the money order was sent whether it was for entire amount or rent due or not. In any case even if the appellant has sent entire rent from January, 1976 till September 1977 on 6-10-1977 it does not save the appellant from the defaults that he has committed earlier. The rent of January, 1976 was to be paid within sixty days of 1-2-1976 and thereafter every month's rent was to be paid in that order and therefore, on 6-10-1977 when the money order was sent by the appellant the rent from January, 1976 till July, 1977 was clearly due making it a period of 19 months. No tenant can have that privilege of waiting for 19 months before sending the rent by money order to the landlord. The net result is that the appellant was clearly in arrears of 19 months rent on 6-10-1977 and therefore, sending of rent by money order did not absolve him from the responsibility in respect of non-payment of rent of the earlier period. Hence the money order sent in October, 1977 did not help the appellant at all and consequently the effort for deposit of rent made by the appellant on 24-10-1977 was similarly of no conse quence because the rent had already been due for 19 months. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Rent Controller was quite right in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to pay the rent from January, 1976. I may also state that the recovery of rent by the respondent through D.W. proceedings filed on 1-11-1977 for the last 12 months conclusively establishes that the rent of 12 months had been due in November, 1977 which had not been paid by the appellant. It is common knowledge that in D.W. proceedings only one year's rent can be recovered and not more. The result is that this appeal is found to be without merit and is hereby dismissed. Mr. M. Zaki Ahmed does not press cross-objections in respect of finding of subletting not having been proved and, therefore, cross-objections are dismissed.
4. Mr. Rim Abbas requests for four months time to vacate the premises. I think it is reasonable request and Mr. Zaki Ahmed does not object to the same provided the appellant continues to deposit the rent in Court. The execution of ejectment is, therefore, postponed for four months subject to the payment of rent but with the stipulation that after four months from today writ of possession would be issued directly without notice to the appellant if the appellant does not vacate the premises.