1. ' This First Rent Appeal is filed by Miss Zohra Masud under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the judgment passed by Mrs. Naseem Manzoor, IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (South), Karachi on 17-9-1990 whereby she has ordered the ejectment of the appellant from Shop No, 20, Hashoo Terrace, FX-7, Block 5, Clifton, Karachi, owned by respondent Aftab Ahmed on the ground of default in payment of rent for 3 months respondent Aftab Ahmed had filed ejectment application on two grounds i,e, ground of default in payment of rent from 15-3- 1989 to 14-6-1989 and that the appellant had sublet the shop premises to her father without his permission. The Rent Application was resisted by the appellant and the Rent Controller ultimately ordered ejectment of the appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent, while the other ground of sub-lacing did not find favour with her.
2. ' The appellant in her case before the Rent Controller stated that the respondent refused to receive rent for the period claimed by him and, therefore, she had tendered the rent for the month of March, 1989 by money order dated 15-4-1989 vide receipt No, 967 and sent the rent by money order No, 2097 on 11-5-1989 for the subsequent month. When the money orders were returned undelivered the Opponent immediately started depositing rent in the Misc. Rent Case No, 896 of 1989 under receipts dated 7-6-1989, 22-6-1989 and 19-7-1989. She, therefore, claimed that no default was made in payment of rent.
3. ' The Rent Controller, however, concluded that the appellant had committed default in payment of rent for 3 months. According to him, the appellant had not examined the postman to prove that she had tendered the rent through money orders which were refused and, therefore, had failed to prove tender of rent and default in payment of rent was committed by her.
4. ' Mr. Rashiduddin Ahmed, Advocate for the appellant, contended that appellant was vigilant in tendering rent through money order the moment respondent declined to accept rent for the very first month and, therefore, no default in payment of rent was committed by her. Admittedly, according to him, rent was paid up to 15-3-1989 by the appellant to the respondent. Rent from 16- 3-1989 was remitted to the respondent by money order No, 967 dated 15-4-1989 while rent up to 16-4-1989 was tendered by money order No, 2097 dated 11-5-1989 and thereafter in June 1989 appellant filed Misc. Rent Case and started depositing rent with effect from 7-6-1989. In view of the above admitted facts he contended that no default was committed by the appellant in payment of rent. He referred to the cases reported in 1984 CLC 1815; PLD 1991 Karachi 452; 1987 SCMR 1313; PLD 1990 SC 389 and 1989 SCMR 1670.
5. ' Mr. Qazi Khalid, Advocate for the respondent, mainly relied on the fact that the appellant neither produced coupons of the money orders nor examined anyone from the Postal Department to prove that rent was remitted through money orders. Under the circumstances the appellant was rightly held to have committed default in payment of rent. He referred to the cases reported in 1984 CLC 2449 and 1987 CLC 1777.
6. ' The material point in this case is whether the appellant had actually tendered rent through the two money orders as claimed by her in her written statement. Alongwith the written statment she had filed photostat copies of the two receipts of the money orders remitting rent to the respondent.
7. Section 10 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 regulates the mode of payment of rent to the landlord by the tenant. Its subsection (1) enjoins the tenant to pay rent to the landlord not later than the tenth of the month next following the month for which amount is due in absence of any date fixed by the agreement between them. On payment of such rent subsection (2) of section 10 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 provides that the landlord shall acknowledge receipt of rent in writing. Subsection (3) of section 10 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 makes a provision in cases where landlord refuses or avoids accepting rent. A tenant is then required by that provision to send rent by postal money order or by depositing it with the Rent Controller having jurisdiction over the premises in question. Subsection (4) of section 10 of the said Ordinance makes a provision that written acknowledgment of payment of rent by the landlord, receipt of the postal money order or receipt of rent by the Rent Controller as the case may be shall be taken and accepted as proof of the payment of rent. It will thus be seen that mere production of the receipt of payment issued for remitting the amount by money order is reckoned by itself to be the proof of payment of rent. In the present case photostat copies of the postal receipts of the two money orders, whereby appellant had remitted rent to the respondent were filed and accepted without any objection from the respondent. The receipts stand proved and the same are taken to be the proof of payment of rent under section 10(4) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. In view of such facts the appellant cannot be said to have committed default in payment of rent as is held by the Rent Controller. Since the receipts for remittance of rent through two money orders were proved by the appellant it was not necessary for her to have produced money order coupons and prove the same as held by the Rent Controller.
8. ' For the foregoing reasons, I had, by my short order passed on 6-10-1992 set aside the judgment impugned in this appeal and allowed the appeal.