This appeal is directed against an order dated 31-10-1987 passed by the learned IVth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi East, in Rent Case No. 24 of 1987 ordering the striking off the defence of the present appellant on the ground that he had failed to comply with the tentative rent order dated 16-7-1987, whereby the appellant was directed to deposit the arrears of rent for the period commencing from 1-2-1986 to 30-6-1987 at the rate of Rs. 7,000 per month, amounting to Rs.
1,19,000 within 30 days and also the current rent.
It seems that in pursuance of the above order, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,12,000 on 12- 8-1987 and had also deposited a sum of Rs. 7,000 on 9---8-1987. Since there was a default of a sum of Rs. 7,000, the respondents filed an application under section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, on 20-8-1987, to which objections were filed on 9--9-1987, in which in para. 3 it was averred that the appellant had paid a cheque bearing No. 846500 dated 17-2-1986 for the sum of Rs. 14,000 which amount included the rent for February, 1986. Alongwith the above objections a photostat copy of an alleged letter of M/s. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. Dated 30-8-1987 addressed to Riaz Music Centre, Bahadurabad, was filed, wherein it was certified that the aforesaid cheque of Rs. 14,000 was encashed on 23-2-1986.
The above para of the objections was replied to by the present respondents through para, 3 of the reply, in which there is a general denial of the contents of para, denial of the factum of the receipt of the and its encashment. Be that as it may, the learned Rent Controller after the parties upon the above application of the respondents, passed the order under appeal. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.
2. In support of the above appeal Mr. Shamshad Alam Lari, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently urged that the learned Rent Controller should have decided the question, whether the respondents had received the above sum of Rs. 14,000 by providing an opportunity to the respondents to produce evidence.
On the other hand Mr. Farooq H. Naik, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the appellant's aforesaid plea as to the delivery of the cheque of Rs. 14,000 and its encashment is an afterthought plea and not supported even by the photostat copy of the alleged bank certificate as it was addressed to Riaz Music Centre, Bahadurabad and not to the appellant and it was not stated in the above certificate who had encashed the cheque.
3. The above contention of Mr.. Farooq H. Naik, learned counsel for the respondents, seems to have some force but the fact remains that in the reply to the objections where this specific averment was made, there was no specific denial. The factum that the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.
1,12,000 in less than 30 days, which was the period allowed by the learned Rent Controller for depositing of the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,19,000 and also the factum that he 'deposited Rs. 7,000 on 9-8-1987 indicated that the appellant's plea might be true.
4. I would, therefore, remand the case to the learned Rent Controller with the direction to allow the parties to lead evidence on the questions, whether factually the above cheque was given by the appellant to the respondents towards the two months rent as was alleged by them in their objections to the respondent's above application under section 16(2) of the Ordinance, and whether factually the above cheque was encashed by the respondents. If the answers to the above two questions are in the negative, the order under appeal will be maintained but if the answers are in the affirmative, the learned Rent Controller will consider the question, whether he should condone the technical default, if any, on the part of the appellant. The parties shall appear before the learned Rent. Controller on 17-9-1988 without any notice from the Court. The office is directed to send the R&P within 3 days.
The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.