' Respondent/landlord filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on 2041-1986 against the appellant/tenant for his ejectment from the shop in question on the grounds of default, personal requirement and subletting. A written statement was filed in which the tenancy and the rate of rent (Rs, 600 per month) was admitted but the application was contested. On the application of the respondent under section 16(1) of the Ordinance, a rent order dated 3-9-1987 was passed directing as follows:-- "Accordingly I direct the opponent to deposit rent at the rate of Rs, 600 per month with effect from September 1985 to August 1987 (both months inclusive) for 24 months amounting to Rs, 14,400 latest by 10 of November, 1987 under this case and future rent commencing from September, 1987 at the same rate latest by 10th of each succeeding calendar month subject to adjustment of rent against the aforesaid arrears, already deposited, if any, under M.R.C. No, 259 of 1987. However, the arrears upto January 1987 shall remain without being disputed."
' An application was filed under section 16(2) of the Ordinance on 22-11-1987 for striking off the defence of the appellant on the ground that he had not complied with the rent order dated 3-9- 1987 in respect of rent for the month of October, 1987. According to the report of the office of the Rent Controller, the following deposits had been made by the appellant in the rent case:-- Rs. 600.00 on10-9-1987 Rs. 1.0,800.00 on6-10-1987 Rs.1,200.00 on7-12-1987 Total: Rs. 12,600.00on10-9-1987 A report was also given of the deposits in M.R.C. No, 259 of 1987 as follows: Rs. 1200.00on9-3-1987 Rs. 600.00on5-5-1987 Rs. 600.00on9-6-1987 Rs. 600.00on7-7-1987 Rs. 600.00on10-8-1987
2. By the impugned order dated 9-2-1988, the Rent Controller allowed the application under section 16(2) of the Ordinance holding that the rent for the month of October, 1987 was not deposited in time and as no reason had been given for not depositing the rent in time, the appellant committed a wilful default in compliance of the rent order. The defence of the appellant was struck off and he was directed to vacate the shop in question.
3. Mr. S. Khizar Askar Zaidi, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the rent order dated 9-8-1987 is a defective order and appellant's defence could not have been struck off and his ejectment on account of non-compliance of such order was illegal. According to the learned counsel, the Rent Controller was required to specify the exact amount to be deposited by the appellant/tenant but the Rent Controller left the calculation to be done by the tenant in respect of the adjustment of rent already deposited by the tenant in the miscellaneous rent case. As observed earlier, the Rent Controller had directed the tenant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs,600 per month with effect from September, 1985 to August, 1987 (for 24 months) amounting to Rs,14,400 by 10th November, 1987 and future rent commencing from September, 1987 at the same rate by 10th of each succeeding month subject to adjustment of rent against the arrears already deposited under the miscellaneous rent case.
' Learned counsel for the tenant has relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ali Jan v. Shujauddin reported in PLD 1985 Kar.
698. In this decision, several other decisions of learned Single Judges of this Court have been referred and discussed. Reference was made in the Division Bench's judgment to the decision of Saleem Akhtar, J in the case of Muhammad Aslam v. Muhammad Umar PLD 1982 Kar. 107 where it was held that if the Controller has passed an order which does not determine the amount approximately and is vague leaving the calculation to the parties or any other person then it will not be an order strictly in compliance with the provisions of section 13(6) of the 1959 Rent Ordinance. It was further held by Saleem Akhtar, J that the provisions of section 13(6) of the 1959 Ordinance being penal in nature, the order passed thereunder must strictly comply with the provisions thereof and any deviation or departure from the provisions of section 13(6) will disentitle the landlord from seeking any eviction for non-compliance thereof. Reliance was placed by Saleem Akhtar, J on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Syed Ehsan All v. Jahn- All PLD 1964 Kar. 418, where it was observed that such provision of law being of a penal nature must be strictly followed and if orders in respect of the arrears and future rent are not passed in strict conformity with its provision the tenant would not be liable to be evicted for not complying with a defective order. The decision in Syed Ehsan Ali's case was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khair Muhammad Nizamani v. Abdul Quddus PLD 1965 (W.P.) Ka:, 367.
' The view taken by Saleem Akhtar, J was followed by B.G.N. Kazi, J in the case of United Bank Ltd. v.
Aijaz Amin 1983 CLC 530.
4. Another judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court (Muhammad Zahoorul Hari, .1) referred in the Division Bench judgment of Ali Jan v. Shujauddin was in the case of Sayeda Binte Asghar v. All Ghazanfar in F.R.A. No,245 of 1982 in which it was observed as follows:-
5. "There is another aspect of the case which is probably more important and that is section 16 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 required the Rent Controller to determine the arrears which are deposited but in the present case the Rent Controller did not determine the final amount which was to be deposited by the respondent but allowed the adjustment of the amount already deposited by the respondent from the amount of Rs,39,200 calculated as the arrears.
' The result is that the calculation of the amount which was to be deposited eventually by the respondent was left with the respondent and to that extent there was a clear illegality in the order as one which was not passed under the provisions of section 16 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Since the non-compliance of the stay order entails penal consequences of the striking off the defence therefore, the order passed under section 16 has to be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the said section and in case the departure is made by the Rent Controller then the order loses the sanctity."
' 4-A. After referring to the various decisions of learned Single Judges of this Cowl on this question, the Division Bench in PLD 1985 Kar. 698, observed as follows:-- "It will, therefore, appear that it is the consistent view of this Court that a Controller while passing order under the provisions of section 13(6) of the Sindh Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, must strictly comply with the provisions thereof, for, the non-compliance of the order results in eviction of the tenant from the rented premises and, if an order passed is not strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 13(6) of the Sindh Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, or section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, such an order would be illegal and non-compliance thereof would not entail the consequences of eviction of the tenant from the rented premises."
' However, the Division Bench in PLD 1985 Kar. 698 did not accept the appeal of the tenant in that case holding that the Rent Controller had given 2 separate and independent directions i.e. One for arrears and the other for future rent. The Division Bench held that the order about the arrears was illegal but the direction about the deposit of future rent was valid. It was observed as follows:-- "We have no doubt that the directions for deposit of arrears of rent and for deposit of future rent are independent of each other and are two separate directions though that may be contained in one order for the reason that there may be cases where there may not be any arrears of rent to be paid. In such cases there will not be any order by the Controller for deposit of arrears of rent. There will be an order only for deposit of future rent and in such case there could be a default in respect of future rent only Thus, we are clear in our mind that the two directions which are required to be given by the Controller are independent of each other."
5. In the present case also, there are two directions in the rent order dated 8-9-1987 under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 i.e., one for deposit of arrears and the other for deposit of future rent. The first direction is illegal in view of the law laid down by this Court and confirmed by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ali Jan v. Shujauddin PLD 1985 Kar. 698 inasmuch as instead of determining the exact amount to be deposited as arrears, the Rent Controller determine the arrears tentatively of 24 months (from September 1985 to August 1987) but directed to deposit such sum "subject to adjustment of rent against the aforesaid arrears, already deposited, if any, under M.R.C. No,259 of 1987". However, the other part of the rent order by which a direction was given for deposit of future rent was valid and the. Rent Controller could strike off the defence of the tenant and order his ejectment if the direction for deposit of furture rent was not complied with.
6. In this case, the appellant's defence has been struck off and he has been ordered to be ejected on the ground that rent for the month of October, 1987 was not deposited (one of the future months) in time. Pursuant to the order dated 8-9-1987, a sum of Rs,600 was deposited by the appellant on 10-9-1987 and another sum of Rs,10,800 on 6-10-1987. I have already held that the direction for deposit of arrears was a defective part of the rent order. In the circumstances, his defence could be struck off for non-compliance of the rent order dated 8-9-1987 only on the ground that the direction for deposit of future rent was not complied. As stated earlier, a sum of Rs,11,400 (Rs,600 plus Rs,10,800) has been deposited in September and October, 1987. In the circumstances, it could not be held that there was a default in deposit of the rent for October, 1987 by the appellant.
' Mr. Syed Zaki Muhammad, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord had submitted that the amount of Rs,10,800 deposited on 6-8-1987 by the tenant was towards the arrears and as such the said amount of Rs,10,800 could not be considered as deposit towards future rent. The submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. As noticed earlier, the rent order dated 8-9-1987 gave two directions one for deposit of arrears and the other for deposit of future rent. The direction in the order for deposit of arrears has been found to be defective and illegal. The amount has been deposited by the appellant pursuant to the rent order and till such time a legal order is passed by the Rent Controller for deposit of arrears, all amounts deposited by the tenant pursuant to the rent order dated 8-9-1987 can be adjusted against the direction for deposit of future rent. The tenant was not under any legal obligation to deposit any amount pursuant to the direction for deposit of arrears, such direction being defective and illegal. All deposits made pursuant to the rent order dated 8-9-1987 will, therefore, be considered as deposit against the valid direction for future deposit contained in the rent order passed under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
7. As a result, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 9-2-1988 of the Rent Controller striking off the defence of the appellant and for his ejectment is set aside. The case stands remanded for disposal by the Rent Controller according to law.
' There will be no order as to costs.