1. ' The appellant Jamaluddin Qureshi is the tenant of a shop in a building known as Saeeda Chambers, situated on Plot No,F-1, Block-7/8, Karachi Cooperative Housing Societies Union Limited, Shahra-e-Faisal, Karachi. The admitted rent of the said premises is Rs,5,000 per month. The rented premises is owned by Messrs Fassm az Limited, a private incorporated Company.
2. ' On 18-34986, as application under section 15(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was filed by the respondent, landlords, in the Court of Vth Rent Controller, Karachi (East) for ejectment of their tenant from the said shop on the grounds that the tenant had converted the use of the premises from restaurant to a shop, committed default in payment of rent amounting to Rs,45,000 from June, 1985 till the filing of the Application and has also damaged the property. Appellant filed his written statement wherein he generally denied the allegations made in the Application.
3. ' An application under section 16 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was filed by the landlords seeking directions of the Rent Controller for the deposit of arrears of rent amoi ting to Rs,45,000 in Court and also payment of the current and future.Monthly rent. The appellant did not file any objection in the said application. This application was allowed by the Rent Controller on 25th November, 1987. It was ordered that arrears of rent for 30 months be deposited within two months of the passing of the order and future monthly rent from the month of December, 1987 on or before 10th of the each calendar month till the disposal of the case. The appellant it appears filed an application for review of this order, in which he claimed that the respondent in his application had in fact demanded Rs,45,000 as arrears of rent as against the direction of the Court to deposit Rs,150,000 on that account. He further stated that he can establish the fact that he had deposited the entire rent by producing original deposit slips.
4. ' The Rent Controller obtained the report from the Nazir of that Court who reported that the current monthly rent was deposited as under:--- {{TABLE}} 10-1-1988 21-2-1988 3-4-1988 30-5-1988 29-6-1988Rs.5,000 Rs. 5,000 Rs. 5,000 Rs. 5,000 Rs. 5,000 ' After June till the time of his report on 13-8-1988 no deposit of current monthly rent was made by the Appellant.
5. ' The report of the Nazir clearly established that the Appellant had started depositing rent for the month of December, 1987 in January, 1988 in compliance with the tentative order but in the process the rent for January, April and May were deposited beyond the prescribed date and no payment was made thereafter till the passing of the order impugned in this Appeal.
6. ' The Rent Controller on the basis of the above facts ultimately on 17th September, 1988 passed an order striking off the defence of the appellant and directed him to hand over the possession of the rented premises to the landlord within one month from the date of his order. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.
7. ' Mr. Talmiz Burney, Advocate appearing for the appellant, pressed his application filed under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, to produce additional evidence by way of bringing deposit slips showing credits in the Bank Account of one of the Directors of the Company, landlords of the rented premises.
8. ' Mr. Farooq H. Naik, Advocate for the respondents, states that as all the slips intended to be produced are the slips relating to the credits made by the appellant in the account of (late) Mr. Ziaullah Rajput, one of the Directors of the Company that owned the premises. He therefore did not object to grant of above application.
9. ' By consent the application mentioned hereinabove is granted and the documents filed alongwith the application be treated as a part of the record of the case.
10. ' Mr. Talmiz Burney, Advocate for the appellant, then contended that on proper calculation of the entire amount deposited by the appellant in Bank as stated above it will be found that no arrears of rent remain to be paid by the appellant and his defence could not be struck off.
11. ' Mr. Farooq H. Naik, Advocate for the respondents, contends that in a case where rent is deposited in the Bank account of a person other than the landlord it will not amount to tender of rent under the law. He further contended that after a tentative order for deposit of arrears of rent and current monthly rent is passed by a Rent Controller, the tenant is bound to comply with that order strictly and in case of non-compliance of the order the consequences according to law have to follow. In support of his such contention he has referred to the following cases:---
(1) 1972 SCM R 262.
(2) 1985 SCM R 170.
(3) 1987 SCM R 25.
(4) 1988 SCM R 427.
(5) PLD 1981 Kar. 739, ' From the facts stated above it seems that the appellant was crediting amount of rent in the name of a Director of the Company that owned the rented premises and after the tentative order for payment of ,arrears of rent and current rent was passed by the Rent Controller, the appellant made good the deficit in payment of arrears of rent by depositing the amount in the same account and started depositing the current monthly rent in Court as mentioned above. Although the credit of rent in the personal account of a Director of the Company that owns the premises will not legally amount to tender of rent to the landlords but in certain suitable cases depending on the facts of each case, a Rent Controller may exercise his discretion by condoning such lapse on the part of a tenant. Once proceedings for ejectment from a rented premises are before a Rent Controller under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the relationship between landlord and tenant is regulated by the orders of the Rent Controller passed in the case. In the event of non-compliance of such orders the consequences mentioned in law shall follow. In the present case event though the deposit of the amount of arrears of rent may be condoned but there appears to be no ground for the appellant to justify default committed by him in payment of rent for the current months to entitle him to the benefit of any discretion that can justifiably be exercised in his favour either by the Rent Controller or by the Appellate Court. No exception can be taken to the decision of the Rent Controller in striking off the defence of the appellant in the circumstances of the present case and directing him to put the landlords in possession of the rented premises. No other ground has been taken by Mr. Talmiz Burney, Advocate for the appellant and the appeal is dismissed.
12. ' Mr. Farooq H. Naik, Advocate for the respondents, undertakes that the respondents will not file any execution application for a period of 6 months provided the appellant continues to deposit rent regularly before the Rent Controller and in the event he commits default in payment of current rent for this period or does not hand over possession of the rented premises to them on expiry of six months from today he will file execution application and the Rent Controller be directed to issue writ of possession without notice to the appellant. I think this is a very liberal concession made by Mr. Farooq H. Naik, ' Advocate for the respondents, and the undertaking offered by him shall be treated as the part of this judgment.