1. SYED ABDUR RAHMAN, J.- This F.R.A, is directed against the order of the Sixth Sr. Civil Judge & Rent Controller, Karachi (South) dated 30-5-1990, whereby he struck-of the defence of the appellant on the ground that he had failed to comply with the direction to deposit the arrears of rent. The appellant was, interalia, required to deposit the third instalment of the arrears of the rent amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 10-1-1990. On 8-1-1990 the appellant made an application for extension of time for deposit of third instalment as the appellant had not been able to arrange for the amount. No interim stay was granted on this application. While the application was still pending the date 10-1- 1990 came. The appellant did not deposit the amount till 18-1-1990. Hence the admitted position is that the direction of Rent controller to deposit the third instalment of arrears of tentative rent was violated. The deposit was made after sight days and the delay was refused to be condoned by the Controller by the order dated 30-5-1990.
2. Mr. Abdul Rasheed has stated that the appellant which is an Insurance Company was I n financial difficulty due to abnormal conditions in the city, and therefore, could not arrange the amount. Hence it made an application for extension of time. The learned Controller did not extend the time nor did he dispose of the application before 10-1-1990, hence the delay. He has relied upon 1990 SCM R 750 Mst. Fatimunnissa Vs. Zubaida, wherein this Court has condoned the delay in depositing the rent and the same order of condonation was up-held by the Supreme Court. I have gone through this ruling. It is distinguishable for the present case. On the day on which the order for deposit of arrears of rent was passed the appellant/tenant was absent and had, therefore, no knowledge of the sai d order. Obviously, a person, behind whose back an order of deposit of rent was passed, was not expected to comply with the same. This is not the situation in the present case. The appellant was not only aware of the passing of the order of deposit of tentative rent but was also aware of the fact that date of deposit was 10-1-1990. In fact he had made an application for extension of two days before the date and, therefore, the question of his being unaware of the order of the date of deposit of rent does not arise. It is, therefore, clear that he has deliberately violated t he order of this Court. Default under sub-section (2) of section I6 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance is of a peculiar nature and cannot be equated with the ordinary default under section 15 of the said Ordinance. It is violation of the directions of the Controller and there is no discretion with the Controller to condone, the same. He has no jurisdiction to extend the time once fixed. Hence the filing of the application for extension of time by the appellant was an exercise in futile. Reliance was rightly placed in 1990 SCM R 557 Muhammad Yousaf V. Muhammad Bashir where Mr. Muhammad Afzal Zullah J. (Presently Chief Justice of Pakistan) held as follows: - "The default under section 13 (6) is of a peculiar nature. As held by this court the Rent Controller has no discretion to condone it as distinguishable from the default in payment of rent relatable to the other provision of section 13.
2. Accordingly the first and the last contentions of the learned counsel have no force."
3. I, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. Hence the F.R A; is dismissed.
4. The appellant is directed to handover the vacant possession to the respondent with in ninety days from today.