' This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is filed against the order, dated 21-3-1989 passed by Mr. Zahid Hamid, IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (Central), Karachi by which he struck off the defence of the appellant directing its eviction from the disputed premises within a period of four months.
2. The respondent is the owner/landlord of premises bearing No,675/15, Federal B. Area, Karachi, the ground floor of which is on lease with the appellant at a monthly rent of Rs,1,000. On 31-1-1987 the respondent filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, before the Rent Controller seeking the ejectment of the appellant on the following grounds:--
(i) Infringement of the conditions on which the premises was let out.
(ii) Default in payment of rent.
(iii) Personal requirement of the respondent/landlord.
3. The appellant resisted the eviction on various grounds. The default in payment of rent was disputed and an adjustment towards a loan obtained by the respondent was claimed.
4. On 20-7-1988 the Rent Controller passed an order under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 directing the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent and monthly rent due in the following terms:-- 'I have heard the parties' counsel and examined the record of M.R.C. No,9/87 and have found that the opponent deposited Rs,25,000 upto 16-11-1987.
' The applicant present in Court states that he was not informed by the opponent that an amount of Rs,8,500 were due as against the loan which he had received in the sum of Rs,50,000 from the bank. The applicant further states that he had paid the entire loan inter alia by permitting adjustment from the rental arrears before the institution of the instant case. Accordingly I direct the opponent to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month from August, 1986 upto July, 1988 in total sum of Rs,24,000 in this case, subject to adjustment of the aforesaid rent deposited under M.R.C. No,9/87 on or before 10-9 1988 and future rent at the same rate commencing from August, 1988 latest by 10th of each succeeding calendar month."
5. The appellant failed to deposit the arrears of rent and monthly rent due in Rent Case No,112 of 1987, and consequently an application under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was moved on behalf of the respondent for striking off the defence of the appellant. This application was allowed by learned Rent Controller, who vide order, dated 21-3-1989, struck off the defence of the appellant in the following words:-- "In keeping with the aforesaid order the opponent had to deposit a sum of Rs,24,000 in Court subject to adjustment of the rent deposited under M.R.C. No,9/87 on or before 10-9-1988 and future monthly rent of Rs,1,000 commencing from August, 1988 latest by 10th of each succeeding calendar month. However, the opponent deposited Rs,23,500 upto 29-8-1988 instead of Rs,24,000 and subsequently deposited Rs,6,000 on 27-12-1988 and again Rs,6,000 on 17-1-1989 under M.R.C.
No,9/87, whereas no deposit was made under the instant case. Thus, the opponent did not only fail to deposit Rs,500 in addition to Rs,23,500 deposited by him before 10th day of September, 1988 which was fixed for deposit of arrears but also neglected to deposit monthly rent commencing from August, 1988 upto November, 1988 and made a belated deposit of Rs,6,000 on 27-12-1988 and thus clearly defaulted in payment of rent for the months of August, September, October and November, 1988, in addition to making a short deposit by Rs,500 in respect of the arrears. The learned Advocate for the opponent argued that a certain amount had been advanced as loan to the applicant and that if adjustments of that amount were allowed no default would be deemed to have been committed. However, such arguments are extraneous and do not warrant consideration in view of apparent violation of the orders under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
' I, have, therefore, no alternative but to strike off the defence of the opponent. Ordered accordingly.
' The opponent is directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the case premises to the applicant within four months hereof subject to payment of rent for the said period according to law."
' It is in these circumstances that the present appeal has been filed.
6. I have heard Mr. Sahibzada Manzoor All Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Shamim Ahmad Riazi, learned counsel for the respondent. I have also examined the record of this case carefully.
7. Admittedly, the appellant had been depositing the rent in M.R.C. No,9 of 1987 prior to the passing of an order under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and the arrears of rent deposited in MRC No,9 of 1987 were allowed to be adjusted in R.C. No,112 of 1987, out of which this appeal has arisen. The appellant, however, continued to deposit monthly rent due in MRC No, 9 of 1987 in complete disregard of the order, dated 20-7-1988 passed under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. No reason is assigned about this lapse on the part of the appellant, although it is contended that default, if any, was purely technical and no prejudice appears to have been caused to the respondent. The case of Noor Muhammad and another v.
Mehdi, reported in PLD 1991 SC 711, appears to lend some colour to this contention. The facts of the reported case are, however, distinguishable and in the reported case the deposits in earlier rent case were made within time, which is not the position in the present case, in which as observed by learned Rent Controller belated deposits were made.
8. The appellant has also claimed adjustment of the balance amount outstanding against the respondent towards the loan of Rs,50,000 which the respondent had taken from the bank. The respondent has seriously contested this position and according to him no amount was outstanding against him. At any rate it was a disputed question, not relating to the point in issue, which is rightly disposed of by the learned Rent Controller in the following words:-- "The learned Advocate for the opponent argued that a certain amount had been advanced as loan to the applicant and that if adjustments of that amount were allowed no default would be deemed to have been committed. However, such arguments are extraneous and do not warrant consideration in view of apparent violation of the order under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979."
9. Even if the default committed by the appellant by making deposits in MRC No,9 of 1987, instead of Rent Case No,112 of 1987, is taken as technical, there is no explanation for making a short deposit of Rs,500. Thus, from whatever point of view the matter may be looked at, there is no escape from the conclusion drawn by the learned Rent Controller.
10. For all the above reasons, the appeal has got no merits and is accordingly dismissed with no costs. The appellant is, however, allowed two months' time to vacate the demised premises.