1. ' The present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the orders passed by the Rent Controller and Third Senior Civil Judge, Karachi Central in Rent Case No,853/1992 on 26-5-1993 whereby the present appellant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the case premises as his defence was struck off under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance.
2. ' Briefly the facts relevant for the purposes of this appeal are that the present rent case was filed by the respondent seeking ,ejectment of the appellant on the grounds of default and personal requirement. As regards the default it was alleged that the parties had entered into an agreement of tenancy on 20-2-1991 and clause 5 of the agreement shows that the monthly rent was fixed at Rs,4,000 which was to be enhanced to Rs,5,000 after expiry of the agreement which was for eleven months and on continuation of the relationship as such. As against this the present appellant's case is that this agreement on the expiry of eleven months was never renewed and, therefore, the rent remained to Rs,4,000 which he had paid up to August, 1992 to the respondent and thereafter sent the rent for the months of September, 1992 till December, 1992 through money orders and thereafter he started to deposit the rent in the Court of the Rent Controller in the Miscellaneous Rent Case. Along with the main Rent Case, the respondent had also moved an application under section 16(1) of the Ordinance seeking an order against the appellant directing him to deposit arrears of the rent and future monthly rent in the Court. Objections were filed by the appellant to this application wherein it was contended that the rate of rent remained at Rs,4,000 per month and was not enhanced to Rs,5,000 and that he had paid the rent for the period up to December 1992 through money order and after that he deposited the rent in Court. On the basis of this the Rent Controller passed the order on 8-4-1993 to the effect that the arrears for nine months at the rate of Rs,5,000 which comes to Rs,45,000 and allowing the adjustment of Rs,16,000 deposited by the appellant in M.R.C. No,216 of 1993, he was directed to deposit Rs,29,000 on or before the 5th May, 1993. This order not having been complied with, an application was moved under section 16(2) of the Ordinance by the respondent which was allowed and the defence of the appellant was struck off. He was directed to hand over the vacant possession. Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M. Abdul Karim Siddiqui is that under section 16(1) of the Ordinance the Rent Controller was required to hold an enquiry with regard to rate of rent and the period in default which he has not done and, therefore, the very order passed under section 16(1) of the Ordinance is not enforceable in law and of no consequence and, therefore, the subsequent order striking off the defence of the appellant is also of no legal consequence and is to be set aside. He has placed reliance on the case of Ali Jan v. Shujauddin PLD 1985 Karachi 698.
4. ' I am afraid that this does not help the present appellant as in this case a general order with regard to adjustment of rents deposit in Court was passed. This judgment shows that in this case the Rent Controller had ordered that whatever amount of rent was deposited in which- ever rent cases should be adjusted. This order being in general terms without specifying the amount deposited or the rent case in which the amount was deposited was struck off by a Division Bench of this Court. In the present cafe not only the amount of rent deposited in rent case has been specified but also the rent case has been mentioned. As against this the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the case Chaudhry Rahimuddin v. Chaudhry Jalaluddin PLD 1991 SC 484, wherein it was observed by their Lordships that while passing tentative rent order the Rent Controller was not to hold a full-fledged enquiry by examining the witnesses who had filed affidavit-in-evidence in the main case. Even the provision of section 16(1) of the Ordinance provides that it is to be a summary enquiry to be held by the Rent Controller as he deems fit to make. In the present case the appellant had not produced the counterfoils of the money order coupons with his objections, and, therefore, the Rent Controller could not take the same into consideration while passing the first order. Clause five of the Rent Agreement specifically states that after the expiry of the period of eleven months the rent shall stand increased to Rs,5,000 per month. In these circumstances I find no defect with the order of the Rent Controller passed on 18-4- 1993. The non-compliance of the said order, calls for the invoking of penal clause as provided in section 16(2) of the Ordinance which has been rightly resorted to by the Rent Controller. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant shall hand over the vacant possession to the respondent within two months from the date of this order.