1. ' This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order dated 29th August, 1989, passed by the learned Vth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East, whereby, the defence of the appellant was struck off and he was directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises within three months.
2. ' The brief facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that respondent filed ejectment application against the appellant under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, inter alia alleging therein that he is the owner and landlord of house bearing No,27 situated at Blocks 7 and 8 in Jinnah Co-operative Housing Society No,2: Off Tip Sultan Road, Karachi; That the opponent was the tenant of his mother, deceased Fatima Bai by virtue of tenancy agreement dated 24th October, 1975, on a monthly rent of Rs,1,800. That on the death of his mother, the opponent became his tenant and whenever, the rent was paid by the opponent, he used to issue rent receipt to him. That the opponent proved to be a habitual defaulter and he has failed to pay rent since April, 1987 and was, therefore, a defaulter. That the applicant requires the demised premises in good faith for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of his children. That his family comprises of ten members. The opponent was requested to vacate the premises but he has refused to vacate the premises. The opponent/appellant was served with summons and he filed his written statement, in which he admitted that he was the tenant of Mst. Fatima Bai since November, 1975.
3. Initially, the rent was Rs,850 per month. However, she served him with notice in April, 1979, calling upon him to vacate the premises, as the same were required by her for her personal bona fide use and for the use of her family. After service of notice, the rent was increased to Rs,1,225 per month and the landlady did not press for vacation. Again in the year 1981, she wanted to increase the rent and filed Rent Case No,114/1988, on the ground of personal bona fide need and, therefore, the opponent agreed to pay the rent. It was further stated that th opponent had been paying rent to Mst. Fatima Bai regularly against issuance of receipts. However, he was never intimated by the applicant that he has become the landlord. It was further stated that the applicant being son of the landlady used to collect rent at his convenience in lump sum and he used to issue rent receipt at his convenience. The rent for April, 1987, was paid in 2nd week of May, 1987, but the rent receipt was not issued to him. The rent for the months of May and June, 1987 were tendered through the applicant sometime in the first week of July, 1987, with the request to issue receipt for the rent already paid in respect of April, 1987, but the applicant refused to issue the same, therefore, on 27- 81987, the opponent tendered the rent for the months of May, June and July, 1987, through money order to the landlady but the same was refused with ulterior motive to create a false ground for ejectment. Consequently, the opponent started depositing rent in Misc. Rent Case No,786 of 1987, the ground of personal bona fide need was denied. Rest of the allegations were also denied.
4. ' That during the tenancy of the ejectment case, the respondent filed an application under section 16 (1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent as well as future rent in Court. The tenant/appellant filed objections in which it was averred that since no rent receipts were issued for the months of May and June 1987, and for the month of April, 1987, the rent was sent through money order but the same was refused. Thereafter, the rent is being deposited in Court regularly, and there are no arrears of rent against the opponent. In support of the above contentions, two money order coupons, one challan dated 6-10-1987 for Rs,9,000 and another challen dated 22-11-1987 for Rs,1,800 was produced.
5. ' After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Rent Controller passed the tentative order, directing the opponent to deposit Rs,30,600 as arrears of rent from April, 1987 to August, 1988 within one month from the date of the order. It was further observed that the amount so deposited in Misc. Rent Case No,786/1987, be adjusted as arrears of rent in the present case.
6. That since the payment of rent for the month of April was disputed it was ordered that the same shall not be withdrawn by the landlord till the decision of this case. The opponent was further directed to deposit further monthly rent at the rate of Rs,1,800 from the month of September, 1988 on or before 10th of every calendar month, till the decision of this case.
7. ' That since the opponent/appellant failed to comply with the tentative order, an application under section 16 (2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was moved on which a notice was issued to the tenant and he filed his objections in which it was stated that he has paid rent upto April, 1987, to the applicant directly; On refusal to accept rent from May, 1987, the opponent has deposited rent in Misc. Rent Application No, 786 of 1987 upto April, 1988. Thereafter, the elders of the Mohallah Committee, of which the applicant and opponent are members, intervened and talks for compromise were undertaken and finalised. It was agreed between the parties that the opponent will increase monthly rent as decided by Mohallah Committee, which will be paid direct to the applicant in lump sum at the agreed increased rate. It was further agreed that, in the meantime the opponent will stop depositing rent in Court as the same will cause difficulty for the applicant to withdraw rent from the Court. That the application was mala fide and the default, if any, was not wilful. In support of the above objections, the appellant filed his own affidavit and also moved an application for summoning M/s. Mehammad Yusuf and Abdul Razzak on 2-5-1989 on which the following order was passed.
"ADVOCATES TO BE HEARD"
8. (Sd.)
9. Link Judge.
10. ' However, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the explanation offered by the opponent does not appear to be reasonable and consequently his defence was struct off, he was directed to vacate the premises within three months. The present appeal is directed against the above judgment of ejectment.
11. ' I have heard Mr. Sher Afghan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Abdul Aziz A.
12. Munshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, and have gone through the R & P of the case.
13. ' It was contended by Mr. Sher Afghan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the default, if any, in not complying with the tentative order was bona fide and the learned Rent Controller has erred in directing ejectment of the appellant. He has further contended that the appellant .Had moved an application for summoning two witnesses in order to substantiate his explanation but the learned Rent Controller did not pass any orders on the said application and, therefore, the case of the appellant was seriously prejudiced.
14. ' Mr. Abdul Aziz A. Munshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that it is an admitted position that the appellant had failed to comply with the tentative order passed by the learned Rent Controller and the explanation filed by him was absurd. It was further contended that even after the filing of application under section 16 (2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the appellant has failed to deposit rent and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
15. ' I have considered the contentions and have gone through the R & P of this case. It has been admitted by the appellant, in his objections, filed before the learned Rent Controller, that he had deposited rent upto April, 1988, and the explanation for not depositing rent in Court, as directed by the learned Rent Controller appears to be absurd and untenable. There is no doubt that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant before the Rent Controller had moved an application for summoning two witnesses in order to support his objections but it appears that the above application was not decided. The learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard as far as the application under section 16 (2) of the said Ordinance was concerned. Be that as it may, the fact that the appellant has failed to deposit rent even after the ejectment order was passed, till today goes a long way to show that the default was wilful and the appellant was not in a mood to pay the rent. The explanation offered by the appellant appears to be absurd on the face of it and cannot be considered as a ground to condone the non-compliance of tentative order. In rent matters, the Rent Controller can always take into consideration the subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation to do complete justice and in the present case it is the admitted position that the appellant tenant neither deposited the arrears of rent nor future rent as directed by the Rent Controller.
16. ' In the case of Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir (PLD 1978 SC 220); it was observed that:- "In proper cases, the Court is entitled to take note of the subsequent events and grant relief to the parties in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, to shorten the litigation, and to do complete justice between the parties and mould the relief according to altered circumstances in the larger interest of justice."
17. From the above factual as well as legal position I am of the considered view that since the appellant has failed to comply with the tentative sent order and has failed to deposit rent even after ejectment order he is a is defaulter since May, 1988, no case for interference is made out and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
18. ' However, I allow two months time to the appellant to hand over vacant possession to the respondent subject to the condition that he deposits future monthly rent as ordered by the learned Rent Controller. In case, the possession of the premises is not handed over to the respondent as directed, the learned Rent Controller shall issue writ of ejectment without issuing prior notice to the appellant, in case execution application is filed.