' This appeal is directed against the order of VIth Rent Controller (South) Karachi dated 5-3-1990 whereby he struck off the defence of the appellant and ordered that the respondent be put in possession of the premises within 60 days thereof.
2. The facts forming the background of this case in nutshell are that respondent Fransic Chai Hai Phan had filed an application for ejectment against the appellant. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was admitted, so also the rate of rent, therefore, the learned Rent Controller by order dated 16-12-1989 directed the appellant to deposit arrears of rent by 10th of January, 1990. By the same order he also directed the appellant to deposit future rent from January 1990 by 10th of every following month. It was also ordered therein that if the money-order allegedly sent by the appellant had been received by the respondent it could be adjusted in the arrears with permission of the Court and the appellant was directed to inform the Court within 10 days, if the money-order had been received by the respondent. The order dated 5th March, 1990 striking off the defence of the appellant shows that a deposit of Rs,186 only was made on 26-2-1990. This was admittedly the current rent for four months and, therefore, there was clear dis-obedience of the Court even so far as this deposit was concerned. It will be useful to reproduce the relevant para. Of the order of the learned Rent Controller which reads as under:- "From record it transpires that opponent did not inform the Court about money order till this day.
Even today the letter of post office produced by the opponent indicate that the opponent had not given the complete address of the applicant to the postal authorities. Moreover it is quite apparent from his letter that amount has not yet been paid to the applicant which clearly means that rent order has not been complied about arrears of rent. Furthermore, future rent was also not deposited in time and as a matter of fact the amount of Rs,186 deposited on 26- 2-1990 was clearly for four months, which means that the arrears were aslo included in this amount and not only future rent for January was not paid to time but even for 3 earlier months was delayed. This noncompliance of the rent order is in addition to the non-compliance of order regarding earlier arrears."
3. The appellant has produced a cheque of Rs,1,302 dated 8-6-1988 alleged to have been sent by him to the respondent, which he did not get encashed. There is no proof that this cheque was ever received by the respondent and, therefore, it cannot be looked into. The payment of money-order of Rs,1,395 was to be brought to the notice of the Court by the appellant within 10 days. He did not bring this fact to the notice of the Court within that time. Admittedly, the payment of the money order has not been received by the respondent. Therefore even on his refusal to receive the money order it was the duty of the appellant to have deposited the arrears of rent, which he had sent by the money order, in the Court of learned Rent Controller. Mr. Khalid Athar on a question put by the Court states that after the deposit of rent vide receipt dated 26-2-1990 referred to above for Rs,186 he has not deposited any further amount in Rent Case No,206/1988.
4. I am, therefore, satisfied that there has been clear default and non-compliance of the order of the Court dated 16-12-1989 and, therefore, A the learned Rent Controller was justified in striking off the defence of the appellant. Hence there is no merit in this appeal. The order dated 5-3-1990 of the learned Rent Controller is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to deliver the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within 60 days of this order provided he has deposited entire arrears of rent due from him.