1. ' The respondents claim that the appellant has defaulted in payment of rent from 1st February, 1980 to 21-1-1982. This has been denied by the appellant on the plea that first the rent for the months of February and March, 1980 was offered personally but it was refused. Thereafter two money orders of Rs,17,000 each were remitted on 24-3-1990 and 29-3-1990 which were refused and finally he started depositing rent in Court from 21-4-1990 which he has been depositing regularly. The admitted facts are that the tenancy is a monthly tenancy commencing from 1st day of the month and ending on the last day of every month according to the English calendar with effect from 1st May, 1968. The learned Controller by the impugned order held that the appellant has failed to prove that rent was tendered personally or by money order. This aspect of the case has remained unchallenged as no cogent evidence to prove these facts was produced. The remittance of money order was denied and the same was not proved by producing some one from the postal department. The learned Controller has granted ejectment on the ground that the rent should have been deposited or paid within a period of 15 days from the end of the month but as the same was not done the appellant has committed default. Mr. M. Fasihuddin Ahmad the learned counsel for the respondent has also supported the order on the plea that under section 15(2)(ii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance the appellant was entitled to only 15 days time for payment of rent from the end of the tenancy month and therefore, even if depoit was made on 21-4-1980 he has committed default. The entire argument calls for interpretation of section 15(2)(ii) which reads as follows:-- "15.--- (1) ..................................................................
(2) The Controller shall, make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises within such period as may be specified in the order, if he is satisfied that:
(ii) The tenant has failed to pay rent in respect of the premises in his possession within fifteen days after the expiry of the period fixed by mutual agreement between the tenant and landlord for payment of the rent, or in the absence of such agreement, within sixty days after the rent has become due for payment.
(iii) The tenant has, without the written consent of the landlord;
(a) handed over the possession of the premises to some other person.
(b) used the premises for the purpose other than that for which it was let out.
(c) infringed the conditions on which the premises was let out.
(iv) the tenant has committed such acts as are likely to impair the material value or utility of the premises;
(v) the tenant has indulged in such activities as are causing nuisance to the neighbours;
(vi) the premises is required by the landlord for reconstruction or erection of a new building at the site and the landlord has obtained necessary sanction for such reconstruction or erection from the authority . Competent under any law for the time being in force to give such sanction;
(vii) the landlord requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation or use or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children."
2. In this connection section 10 may also be referred which provides that the rent shall in the absence of any date fixed in this behalf by mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant be paid not later than the 10th of the month next following the month for which it is due. The question for consideration is whether in a case where an agreement which provides for period of tenancy but does not fix a date for payment of rent the grace period shall be 15 days or 60 days. A perusal of sections 10 and 15 will show that although the Ordinance provides for payment of rent on the 10th of the month next following the month for which it is due, it is subject to agreement; if the agreement between the parties is otherwise this date will be changed. In case where the tenancy month ends with the calendar month rent must be paid by 10th of the next month provided there is no agreement to the contrary. In spite of these provisions section 15 has fixed another period for the purposes of calculating default. It contemplates two situations one where by agreement a date for payment has been fixed and the other where there exists an agreement of tenancy but no date for payment of rent has been fixed. In the first case the tenant will be required to pay within 15 days from the date fixed by mutual agreement between the parties; whereas in the second case a grace period of 60 days has been allowed. We have only to consider under which part of this scheme the present case falls. It may be observed that in section 15 (2)(ii) it is provided that default will be committed if the tenant fails to pay rent within 15 days after the expiry of the period fixed by mutual agreement. This indicates the date fixed by the agreement for payment of rent. Mr. M. Fasihuddin Ahmad the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that as the tenancy period has been mentioned in the agfeement the rent can be paid on the first day of the following month and therefore, grace period of 15 days should be allowed. Such conclusion cannot be drawn from the provisions of section 15(2)(ii) which have devised a formula for ascertaining whether a tenant has failed to pay the rent. The provision under consideration is penal in nature. In case of non-payment of rent as provided by section 15(2)(ii) the tenant is treated a defaulter and can be ejected. Such provisions should be construed strictly and with exactitude. There should be no element of uncertainty and vagueness. Where the agreement of tenancy fixes the period of tenancy without fixing an exact date for payment of rent, the tenant would be entitled to a grace period of sixty days. A shorter period of 15 days will apply only in case where the agreement gives a fixed date for payment of rent. In such an agreement the tenant is on notice to pay rent on a specific date.
3. ' In this case the respondent has claimed default from the month of February, 1980 to 31-1-1982, ignoring the tender made personally or by money order the fact remains that the rent was deposited on 21-4-1980 amounting to Rs,340 which represented the rent of four months at the rate of Rs,80 per month. Thereafter he has regularly deposited the rent in Court. As no date for payment of rent was fixed by the agreement and the rent was deposited within a period of 60 days from the date when rent became due the question of default does not arise.
4. ' Mr. M. Fasihuddin the learned counsel contended that as the appellant did not inform about the deposit of rent it was a mala fide act on his part. This cannot be inferred from the facts of the case.
5. In any event deposit has been made in Court regularly and the bona fides of the appellant can be judged from the fact that he has been continuously depositing rent upto date without any default.
6. The appellant had not filed all the receipts before the Controller and for this reason there seems to be some observation which would have not occurred if appellant had taken care to file these receipts which were produced in this Court. By order dated 13-11-1990. I had allowed the production of these receipts as additional evidence on payment of costs and further on condition that the respondent would be entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal. No such evidence has been produced by the respondent to rebut the deposit made in the Court. I, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Controller and allow the appeal.