1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioner is the owner of promises No. 331 Artillery Maidan Quarter, Karachi. The respondent was a tenant in occupation of a shop on the ground floor of the said premises. On the 17th of November 1964 the petitioner applied for the eviction of the respondent on the ground that the respondent had defaulted in the payment of rent for the period 1-9-1953 to 31- 10-1964 amounting to Rs. 6,750 calculated at the rate of Rs. 10 per month.
2. The respondent denied the default on the ground that there was some dispute relating to the person who was entitled to receive the rent of this shop. The respondent also set up a plea that the landlord was not entitled to claim time-barred rents. Notwithstanding this plea, the Rent Controller on the 22nd of April 1965 tentatively fixed the rent at Rs.50 per month and the arrears up to 31st of June 1965 at Rs.4,750 and directed the respondent to deposit the said arrears in two equal installments. He also directed the respondent tenant to pay future rent at the same rate before the 5th day of each month beginning with May 1965.
3. During the pendency of these proceedings, section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance was amended on the 8th of June 1965 and instead of 5th the 15th was substituted as the day by which the tenant has to deposit the tentative monthly rent.
4. The respondent deposited the arrears of rent as directed by the Rent Controller as also continued to deposit monthly rent which was not always before the 5th of each succeeding month, but apart from two months, it was deposited before the 15th of each month.
5. The landlord, however, on the 9th of March 1967 made an application for striking off the defence of the respondent on the ground that he had failed to comply with the order of the Rent Controller.
6. The application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, who held that his order as to the date of payment of future rent stood modified by operation of law after the amendment of subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance on the 8th of June 1965. Furthermore, the Rent Controller held that even the default in two months only to comply with the requirements of the statute had been waived by the landlord by his withdrawal of the rent from the Court.
7. On appeal, however, the Additional District Judge of Karachi came to a different conclusion and allowed the appeal and directed that the defence of the respondent should be struck off. On second appeal, the High Court reversed the decision of the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to direct the deposit of rent which had already become barred by time. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Ashfaqar Rahman v. Ch. Muhammad Arzal (PLD 1968 SC 230). The learned Judge in the High Court of Sind at Baluchistan took the view that if the time-barred rent which had been deposited as arrears by the tenant and actually withdrawn by the land--lord is taken into account, then he must be given credit for the same so far as future rent is concerned and if this is done, then there will be no default at all and there will be some amount still standing to the credit of the tenant. The order of the Rent Controller was, accordingly, restored.
8. The landlord has now come up for special leave to appeal in this Court, but, we are of the opinion that this petition is wholly without any substance. The decision of the High Court is on the basis of at least two decisions of this Court, one in the case of Ashfaqur Rahman v. Ch. Muhammad Afzal, and the other in the case of Ashfaqar Rahman v. Ch. Muhammad Ajzal (PLD 1971 SC 766).
9. We see no reason to differ from the above-mentioned decisions. This petition is, accordingly dismissed.