1. ' The present appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment dated 11-2-1989, whereby IInd Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi South dismissed the Rent Application No,1564/87 filed by the present appellant against the present respondent.
2. ' Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants filed ejectment application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance on the ground that the respondent committed default in payment of rent of the disputed flat for the month of April, May and June, 1987.
3. ' After recording the evidence of both the parties the learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application.
4. ' The operative paragraph of the impugned judgment runs as under:- "Thus the tender of rent for the month of April, 1987, in this way by the money order dated 12-7-1987, was delayed for 12 days, only and the tender of rent for the month of May 1987 was in time.
5. Thereafter the opponent has deposited rent for the month of April to August 1987 in Court on 18-8- 1987, and he is continuously depositing rent in Court vide receipt produced with the affidavit-in- evidence and there is no default. The rent for the month of June was also deposited within time on 18-8-1987. Thus there is only default of 12 days in payment of rent for the month of April, 1987, in case the plea of payment of rent for the months of April and May, 1987 by hand is excluded from consideration. In this respect learned counsel for the opponent has relied on two rulings of Hon'blc High Court of Sindh, reported in 1986 CLC page 705, and 1986 CLC page 1754. Both the Rulings are of my Lord Mr. Justice Muhammad Zahoorul Haque. In the former case the tenant had committed a clear default of one month in payment of rent and it was held that the Rent Controller should not have allowed the ejectment but the discretion should have been exercised in favour of the tenant.
6. Similar view has been taken in the later authority. In the present case at the most there is a delay/default of 12 days in payment of rent for the month of April, 1987 and in view of the above case-law, I exercise the discretion in favour of the opponent and condone the delay if any.
7. ' Issue answered accordingly in negative."
8. ' The learned counsel for the appellant mainly based his arguments on the plea that the learned Rent Controller had no power to condone the delay of 12 days, and was not justified to exercise discretion in favour of the respondent. Reliance is placed on 1986 CLC page 1527, PLD 1974 Karachi 209, and PLD 1973 Karachi 1 (B) (sic). On the other hand learned Rent Controller has placed reliance on 1986 CLC 705 and 1958 wherein it is A held that in genuine cases such discretion can be exercised in favour of the tenant.
9. ' The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is based on the tenancy agreement and for that reliance has been placed on 1972 SCMR 151; 1983 CLC 308 and 1983 CLC 302. Since the tenancy agreement has not been produced in evidence, hence no argument can be based on such agreement.
10. ' Accordingly I see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment, B as such the present appeal stands dismissed with no order as to cost.