' These F.R.S. Are directed against identical Orders dated 15-5-1991 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi East, whereby he struck off the defence of the appellants under subsection (2) of section 16 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Hence these are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The facts forming the background of these F.RAs. Are that the respondents had filed ejectment cases against the appellants in respect of rented Quarters in their possession on the ground of default in payment of rent, causing damage to the bungalow of the respondents wherein these Quarters were situated and subletting. The appellants admitted relationship of landlord and tenant as well as rate of rent. Hence on 6-3-1990 the appellants were directed by the Controller under subsection (1) of section 16 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, to deposit the arrears of rent up to March, 1990 @ Rs,5 p.m. Within one month. They were further directed to deposit future monthly rent at the same rate on or before 10th of each calendar month. The appellants had pleaded that they were depositing the rent regularly in M.R.C. No,379/1989. The learned Controller directed that the rent so deposited in M.R.C. No,379/1989 will be adjusted in the rent case filed against the appellants. He, however, specifically directed the appellants to deposit future monthly rent in these rent cases instead of M.R.C. No,379/1989. The appellants did not deposit any rent whatsoever in these rent cases. Hence the respondents filed application under subsection (2) of section 16 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The appellants contested the applications and admitted that they had not deposited the rent in the ejectment cases filed by the respondents.
They, however, alleged that they continued to deposit the rent in M.R.C. No,379/1989. The learned Controller was not satisfied with their explanation and struck off their defence.
3. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Rafique Khanzada, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Abdur Rehman Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The appellants were specifically directed by the Controller to deposit the arrears of rent and current rent in the rent cases instead of M.R.C. The appellants in spite of that specific direction continued to deposit the rent in the M.R.C. In the name of previous owner Usman Essa Bhai Memon & Co. Which was not only non-compliance of the order of the learned Controller, but was also a cause of annoyance to the respondents, who are the present owners to the knowledge of the appellants. The learned Controller, was therefore, justified in holding that the appellants had failed to comply with the direction given under subsection (1) of section 16 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Reliance was rightly placed in 1988 SCM R 427 (Mahmood Bashir v. Mst. Mubina Begum).
' I, therefore, dismiss these F.R.As. However, I allow a period of six months to the appellants to vacate the Quarters on the condition that they shall hereafter deposit the rent regularly in these rent cases in the name of the respondents and not in the M.R.C. Referred to above.