1. ' This appeal arises from the order dated 6-5-1990 whereby the defence of the appellant was struck off for non-compliance of order dated 20-9-1989 passed by the learned Rent Controller directing the appellant to deposit the arrears in the sum of Rs,6,700 being rent up to September, 1989. The learned Rent Controller further directed the appellant to deposit future rent before 10th of each month, specifically stating that the rent for the month of October, 1989 would be payable in November, 1989 and so on in future before 10th of each succeeding month. The arrears were ordered to be deposited by 30-10-1989.
2. ' The appellant deposited the arrears of rent as ordered by the Rent Controller and thereafter first three deposits on account of future rent were made on 7-12-1989, 3-2-1990 and 12-2-1990, factually towards rent for the months of October, November and December, 1989 respectively, but according to the case of the appellant, as set up initially, the same were for November, December 1989 and January 1990. On 19-2-1990 respondent filed application under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance for striking off the defence of the appellant on the ground of default in payment of future rent for the months of October, November and December, 1989, as the same was not in consonance with the order dated 20-9-1989. The appellant in reply to the aforesaid application stated that the rent order was ambiguous to the extent of arrears of rent _and it was understood that the amount of Rs,6,700 included the rent for October, 1989 also, and accordingly he had been depositing the rent before 10th of each month except that the rent for the month of January, 1990 was deposited on 12-2-1990 instead of 10-2-1990. The reason for the delay was imposition of curfew in District East and District Central since 7-2-1990 for an indefinite period.
3. ' The Rent Controller exonerated the appellant so far as default in payment of rent for the month of January, 1990 is concerned, accepting the plea that because of the curfew in the Districts it was beyond the control of the appellant to deposit the rent by the specified date. But so far as the late deposits for the months of October, November and December, 1989 are concerned the Rent Controller struck off the defence of the appellant for non-compliance of order dated 20-9-1989.
4. ' Mr. Mahfoozul Haq learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the default committed by the appellant was not wilful and deliberate but because of the fact that the appellant had misunderstood the order dated 20-9-89. He has further urged that on receiving the notice of application under section 16(2) of the Ordinance the appellant lost no time and immediately deposited the rent in Court. The learned counsel has contended that had the appellant had no intention to deposit the rent as ordered by the Court, he would not have deposited huge amount of arrears of rent. The submission of the learned counsel is that the appellant should be exonerated from the default committed. On the other hand the learned counsel of the respondent has contended that the non-compliance of the order passed by the Rent Controller has to result in striking off the defence of the appellant unless the appellant can establish that he could not comply with the order of the Rent Controller because of the circumstances beyond his control. He next urged that the order of the Rent Controller,, non-compliance whereof is the subject-matter of the appeal, is clear and unambiguous and there was no question of misunderstanding the same.
5. ' As already observed above the order dated 20-9-1989 directed the appellant to deposit the monthly rent of October in November, 1989 and so one in future before 10th of each month. With regard to the arrears it has been specifically stated that the same are up to September, 1989. In view of such a clarity in the order dated 20-9-1989, the question of misunderstanding the order or being misguided thereby, as contended by the learned Advocate of the appellant, does not arise.
6. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following authorities:
(1) PLD 1987 Kar. 524 (Mst. Sughra v. Aftab Ahmed).
7. ' In this matter three rent cases were filed against the tenants and rent order was passed under section 16(1) directing the tenants to deposit arrears of rent and future rent and adjust the amount of rent if paid by them in any other case. The landlord filed application under section 16(2) for striking off the defence of the tenants on the ground of non-compliance of the order of deposit of rent. The tenants stated that no default was committed, if the sums deposited in Miscellaneous Rent Applications by the tenants are adjusted. The case of the tenants was that if at all there was a default, it was technical one as the amount deposited in the Miscellaneous Rent Applications was already withdrawn by the landlord. It was found by this Court that the tenants in the cases were vigilant and were depositing rent in advance and had not committed any default. The Court further found that if the deposit in Miscellaneous Rent Applications is adjusted, the rent again will appear to have been deposited in advance. It was under these circumstances that the plea of the tenants was accepted by this Court.
(2) 1987 MLD 531, (Nazar Hussain v. Mst. Aziza Khatoon).
8. ' In the above cited case the tenant sent the amount to his Advocate through his driver for depositing monthly rent in Court as ordered by the Rent Controller. The driver could not trace out the Advocate until the Court time was over with the result the rent could not be deposited on that date. The Advocate of the tenant filed his own affidavit in support of above factual position which was accepted by the Court and absolved the tenant of the consequences of noncompliance of the order for the deposit of rent observing that the tenant having done all that was required of him, he could not be made to suffer for the default. There is no such attempt on the part of appellant in the instant case.
(3) 1987 CLC 2527 (Abdul Aziz v. Syed Shamim Ahmed).
9. ' In his case the tenant was directed to deposit the future rent at the rate of Rs,1,700 per month. The tenant deposited the rent at the rate of Rs,1,500. On the application filed by the landlord for striking off the defence, the tenant took up the defence that originally the order of the Rent Controller directed him to deposit monthly rent at the rate of Rs,1,500 p.m. And it was subsequently that the order was corrected to read Rs,1,700. The learned Judge of this Court found above assertion of the tenant to be correct and set aside the order of the Rent Controller passed under section 16(2).
(4) 1987 CLC 1391 (Jamil Ahmed v. Mrs. Sultan Jehan Begum).
10. ' In this case the defence was struck off on the ground that the tenant had deposited rent for the month of January, 1986 on 13th of February, 1986 instead of 10th February. The tenant's plea was that the rent was deposited by him in the Miscellaneous Rent Case in excess of amount due and the said amount was withdrawn by the landlord. On such plea it was found by this Court that the default was technical and not wilful as the rent was already realised by the landlord in excess.
11. ' The above cited cases do not advance the case of appellant in any manner whatsoever. The said cases were decided on altogether different considerations.
12. So far as the present case is concerned the appellant has admitted to have committed default in payment of rent and only defence taken up was the alleged ambiguity of the order of deposit of rent which led to alleged misunderstanding of the said order. As has been pointed out above there is no ambiguity in the order of deposit of rent and on the contrary the order is very clear and as such I am of the view that the Rent Controller has rightly struck off the defence of the appellant for non-compliance of order dated 20-9-1989.
13. ' The above are the reasons for the short order passed on 9-12-1990 whereby I dismissed the appeal with no order as to cost. By consent of both the parties the appellant is granted six months time to vacate the premises subject to deposit of rent as ordered by the Rent Controller. In case the appellant fails to vacate the premises within six months, the Rent Controller will issue writ of possession in execution application, as and when filed by the respondent, without notice to the appellant.