1. ' This Appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 hereinafter called the Ordinance, is directed against the order dated 9-7-1991, passed by the then Rent Controller, Karachi East, whereby under section 16 (2) of the Ordinance, the defence of the appellant was struck off and he was directed to hand over vacant possession of the. Premises in question to the respondents within 60 days from the date of said order. The facts relevant for decision of this appeal are as follows:-- ' The respondents on 21-12-1988 had filed Rent Case No,987/88 against the appellant for his eviction from the premises, viz. Flat No,B, Ground Floor 43/A, Block 6, P.E.C.H.S., Karachi, on the ground that they had already obtained necessary sanction from KDA about reconstruction and for effecting changes and alterations as to combine the flat in question with the adjoining flat as per sanction No,DCA/DCB-X/Prop-196/88/ACB-III/May 41, dated 25-5-1988. The appellant is a tenant in said premises at monthly rent of Rs,2,400 and his case is that initially the rent was Rs,750 p.m. And gradually it was increased to Rs,2,400 but the respondents are not satisfied and want further increasing rent, and for this purpose the eviction application has been filed. The appellant has claimed that he had not committed any default in payment of rent and was regularly depositing rent in MRC No, 44 of 1989.
2. ' On 28-5-1990, the respondents filed an application under section 16(1) of the Ordinance for directing the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent as shown in the said application. Learned Controller on 16-1-1991 directed the appellant to deposit Rs,67,200 (rent from September 1988 to December 1990) for 28 months @ Rs,2,400 p.m. Within a period of 30 days from the date of said order. The appellant was specifically directed to withdraw rent from MRC No,44/89 and deposit the same in this matter. The appellant was further directed to deposit future monthly rent @ Rs,2,400 on or before 10th of each calendar month.
3. ' On 27-4-1991 the respondents moved an application under section 16(2) of the Ordinance before the Rent Controller for striking off the defence of the appellant on the ground that order dated 16-1- 1991 was not complied with by the appellant. Report of Nazir regarding deposit of rent was called, and it was submitted on 25-5-1991. Learned Controller by order dated 9-7-1991 struck off the 'defence of the appellant with an observation that neither the appellant had complied with the Order dated 16-1-1991 nor offered any plausible explanation for its non-compliance. This order has been challenged in this appeal.
4. ' Mr. Rashid Akhtar Qureshi learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order is illegal coram non judice, being in clear violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maj. (Rtd.) A.S.K. Samad v. Lt.-Col. (Rtd.) A. Hussain reported in 1987 SCM R 1013. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant regularly deposited rent in MRC No,44 of 1989 up to the date the impugned order was passed and no arrears were outstanding against him. Learned counsel argued that, at the most, the default was technical and for such default penalty of eviction could not be imposed. In the above-cited case, rent was being regularly deposited by the tenant in earlier proceedings and the amount was being withdrawn by the wife of landlord who was also a co-applicant in subsequent ejection proceedings. Under the circumstances, it was held that tenant could not be condemned for being guilty of disobedience of order of Rent Controller so as to entail penalty of his eviction and said default was found only of technical nature. The instant case is distinguishable, as such, the dictum laid down in the reported case is not applicable to this case. In the instant case, besides there being no explanation for not complying the direction of Rent Controller, the appellant had also committed default by depositing rent on 15-4-1991 for the month of March, 1991, instead of depositing the same on or before 10th April, 1991. This is evident from the report of the Nazir dated 25--5-1991 the authenticity of which has not been challenged. Learned counsel for the appellant was not able to offer any explanation for this default and simply stated that this plea was not taken by the respondents before Rent Controller. It is noted that the respondents in their application dated 27-4-1991 clearly mentioned that the order dated 16-1-1991 was not complied with by the appellant, which order besides containing a direction for depositing the arrears of rent, also unequivocally postulated that future rent was to be deposited on or before 10th of each calendar month. It being so, it cannot be argued that point of default cannot be considered at this stage.
5. ' Mr. Khalid Javed learned counsel for the respondents cited (1) M/s. M.A. Yahya v. M/s. Nawab A.
6. Malik Estate 1982 SCM R 1160, (2) Ghulam Hussain v. Mst. Roshan Bibi 1986 SCM R 1714, (3)
7. Muhammad Bashir v. Mst. Mobina Begum 1988 SCM R 427, (4) Hussain Trading Co., Karachi v. M/s. Jalal Brother (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 1994 SCM R 159 to contend that failure to comply with the specific direction of the Rent Controller to deposit rent entails liability of eviction. The ratio of the above- quoted cases is that in case of noncompliance of the Controller order deliberately, as an inevitable consequence, the eviction is followed. The directions for depositing arrears of rent and future rent are two distinct directions, but such directions can be given in one order. In the instant case, both these directions were given in one order and the appellant did not comply the direction with regard to arrears of rent and also committed default in payment of future rent. No explanation was offered by the appellant either before Rent Controller or before this Court as to why the order of Controller was not complied with. In the circumstances the defence of the appellant was rightly struck off.
8. ' In consequence, I do not find any merit in this appeal, and the same is dismissed with no order as to cost. The appellant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondents within two months from now.