1. This appeal at the instance of tenant involves a short question as to whether the issue regarding default in payment of rent has been correctly decided by the learned Rent Controller. It may be noted that the respondent had filed an application for eviction of the appellant on the grounds of default in payment of rent from February, 1981 at of Rs. 800 till the date of filing of the application, the personal bona fide need and for unauthorised additions and alterations in the premises in question viz. Residential house on first floor of the building standing on Plot No.S.B.6/35, Somerset Street, Sadar, Karachi. The appellant/tenant filed written statement in denial of the respondents/landlord's clams. The issue regarding default in payment of rent has been decided against the appellant tenant; whereas the other two issues pertaining to personal bona fide need and unauthorised additions and alterations have been decided against the respondents/landlords. This appeal, therefore, as already observed, is confined to the examination of the impugned order on the point of default in payment of rent. It may also be mentioned here that the case of the appellant is that the rate of rent is Rs.67.30 p.m. And not Rs. 800 p.m. As claimed by the respondents. It was also pleaded by him that he has been depositing the rent in Court through Misc. Rent Case No.1534/72Aregularly and hence the alleged default was not committed by him. On behalf of the respondents one Anwarul Haque, one of the co-owners examined himself whereas the appellant filed his own affidavit-in-evidence in support of his case.
2. I have heard Mr. Ibrahim Pishori, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Muhammad Afzal, learned counsel for the respondents. Assailing the impugned order Mr. Ibrahim Pishori vehemently urged that the learned Rent Controller while deciding the issue of default has gone beyond the pleadings inasmuch as the respondents had asked for the eviction of the appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent from February, 1981 onwards; whereas the learned Rent Controller has decided the said issue m favour of the respondents by holding that the appellant had remitted rent through Money Order for the months of December 1970 to March, 1971, for the first time, on 10- 4-1971 whereas he was under the law bound to remit the rent for the month of October, 1970 upto 31-12-1970. It seems appropriate if the relevant portion from the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller is reproduced below:- "The perusal of 20 M.O.'s. Produced by opponent shows that rent for the first time was remitted by opponent to applicant Anwarul Haque through M.O. Dt. 10-4-1971 in which rent from 1-10-1970 to 31- 3-1971 at the rate of Rs.67.30 amounting to Rs.403.86 was remitted and thereafter rent was being remitted by subsequent M.O.'s But all these M.Os. Were not accepted by the applicant Anwarul Haque. Taking the version of opponent as true and correct we have to see if rent tendered by opponent through this M.O.(A/20) is within time and according to the provisions of the law. It is settled law that if there is no agreement of tenancy in writing between the parties, the tenant is required to pay the rent to the -landlord within 60 days from the date it becomes due. Here in the instant case as is evident from the pleadings of the parties that opponent was obliged to pay the rent for the month of October, 1970 within 60 days of the period when rent becomes due for the month of October. In absence of written agreement rent for the month of October, will be due and payable within 60 days i.e. Upto 31-12-1970 but M.O. Annexure A/20 dated 10-4-1971 shows that rent for the first time was tendered by opponent much after the grace period allowed by law. Rent at the rate of Rs.67.31 was remitted by M.O. To applicant Anwarul Haque on 10-4- I 971, whereas opponent was duty bound under the law to remit the rent upto 31-12-1970. In the version of opponent he himself becomes defaulter and it appears that he has violated the provisions of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. In the eye of law payment of rent after due date is not valid tender and therefore in the eye of law opponent in the instant case has become defaulter, in payment of rent which he pleads and assess. In the present circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that opponent is defaulter in the eye of law hence issue is answered in affirmative."
3. I have perused the application for eviction and I find that in paragraph 3 thereof the default was specifically, claimed since the month of Feb. 1981 onwards.
4. Mr. Mohammad Afzal, learned counsel for the respondents, however, supported the impugned order by contending that the learned Rent Controller was justified to take note of above default as it was purely a point of law and hence he has not committed any error in allowing the application. I do not find any substance in this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. It is too well settled principle by authorities to be mentioned that the Court has to confine its decision on the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. It could not suo motu enter into or decide a point which was not a point in dispute. At any rate, even if it is for the sake of arguments accepted that the learned Rent Controller could look into the default then too he should, in all fairness, give a chance to the appellant to make his submissions in that behalf. The record does not disclose any such opportunity having been given to him.
5. For the foregoing reasons, I am clearly of the opinion that the impugned order is bad in law and it is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
6. M.Y.H.A/578/K. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.