1. ' First Rent Appeals Nos. 391/93, 392/93, 393/93, 394/93, 395/93, 396/93 and 397/93 filed by appellants Muhammad Ikram, Irfan, Saeed Ahmad, Abdul Samee, Munir Ahmed, Muhammad Saeed and Saeed Ahmed son of (sic) respectively under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereafter mentioned as the Ordinance, 1979) against identical orders of ejectment passed against them in Rent Case Nos. 568/90, 569/90, 570/90, 571/90, 572/90, 573/90 and 574/90 are proposed to be disposed of under this judgment.
2. ' Admittedly each of the appellants mentioned above is occupying a shop constructed on Plot No, B-64, Block L, North Nazimabad, Karachi as tenant of respondent Syed Muhammad Asif on monthly rent of Rs,300. Aforesaid Rent Cases were filed by the respondent for eviction of each of the appellants from the premises occupied by him as tenant of the respondent. The only ground for eviction urged in each of the rent cases was default in payment of rent since Ist March, 1990.
3. ' Each of the appellants contested the rent application instituted against him and filed written statement where ground of default in payment of rent was controverted. The appellants in their identically worded written statements claimed to have paid rent of the demised premises to the respondent for the period ending 31-5-1990. Thereafter the respondent was allege to have refused to receive rent at rate of Rs,300 and demanded rent from each appellant at the rate of Rs,400 p.m.
4. Which was refused. The rent at old rate was said to have been sent to the respondent by the appellants but he declined to receive it. Thereafter an effort was made to send the monthly rent by Money Orders to the respondent who refused to receive the same. Ultimately each of the appellants deposited rent for June 1990 onwards in the Court of concerned Rent Controller, as claimed.
5. ' In each of said rent cases the Rent Controller passed an order on 6-7-1991 under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, directing the appellant/tenant to deposit in Court arrears of rent amounting to Rs,8,400 by 15-8-1991 and to deposit future monthly rent for each month by 10th of the following month. Subsequently on an application moved on behalf of appellant in each case the rent deposit order dated 6-7-1991 passed in that case was corrected to the extent of replacement of figure Rs,8,400 by the figure Rs,1,200 as arrears of rent depositable by 15-8-1991.
6. ' Thereafter, in each of the cases the respondent/landlord moved application under section 16(2) of the Ordinance. In each of the said cases the Rent Controller under an order dated 31-7-1993 struck off defence of the respective tenant and ordered his eviction from the premises occupied by him as tenant. Each of such tenants now appellants filed appeal assailing the order of eviction.
7. ' Mr. Muhammad Saleh Memon, learned counsel for the appellants argued that rent for July, 1991 was already deposited by each of the appellants in the Miscellaneous rent case filed by him and as such there was no default. It was further argued that even if there was default the same was simply a technical one. In support learned counsel for the appellants cited the case of Abdullah Ghanghro and another v. Mst. -Tahira Begum and another (1988 SCM R 970). It was further argued that the appellants had not defaulted in depositing the amount of rent as per the directions given in the order passed under section 16(1) of the Ordinance.
8. ' Mr. S.M. Alam, Advocate for the respondent in all these appeals argued that respondent was claiming rent from March, 1990 and that there were certain deposits in M.R.C. No, 621/90 and in Rent Case No, 568/90. It was added that rent for July, 1991 was deposited on 15-8-1991 although it was to be deposited by 10-8-1991.
9. ' In the case of Abdullah Ghanghro (1988 SCM R 970) the tenants were depositing rent regularly in Court in Miscellaneous proceedings between the same parties but by mistake they continued to deposit rent in the same proceedings even after passing of the rent deposit order under section 16(1) of the Ordinance in the main case between the parties. In the circumstances it was held that the tenants cannot be condemned as guilty of not depositing rent in Court because .They had actually deposited the rent in Court but made the mistake of depositing the rent in one case and not the other and this was an irregularity rather than penal non-compliance of the order passed under section 16(1) of the Ordinance. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent, cited the case of Mst. Akhtar Jehan Begum and others v. Muhammad Azam Khan (PLD 1983 SC 1) where it was held that for the purpose of passing a rent deposit order the Controller has not to determine the question of quantum or rate of rent finally if the same is in dispute, but has to determine such amount "approximately". It was also held that the consequence of non-compliance of such approximate determination is the summary disposal of the case, without taking any further proceedings, ipso facto on basis of such non-compliance by striking off defence and passing order of eviction. There can be no cavil with such view.
10. In the instant case, each of the appellants had deposited the rent in toms of the Rent Deposit Order passed under section 16(1) of the Ordinance except that rent for July 1991 was deposited on 15-8- 1991. This was the only ground for passing of the impugned orders under section 16(2) of the Ordinance. But deposits made in the Miscellaneous rent case show that rent for July 1991 was already deposited in the said case before 10-8-1991. In the circumstances, defence of the appellants could not be struck off.
11. ' For the foregoing reasons I accept all these appeals and set aside the impugned orders for ejectment of the appellants and remand the rent case to IInd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi Central for disposal according to law. The Rent Controller is not debarred from striking off defence of any of the appellants if such appellant is proved to have committed breach of the order passed in respect of him under section 16(1) of the Ordinance. There shall be no order as to costs.