1. This, is an appeal under section 21 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called Rent Ordinance) filed by the appellants directed against as order dated 23-8-1994 passed in Rent Case No.141 of 1993, M/s. Rainbow Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Abdul Aziz whereby the learned Rent Controller has struck off his defence and ordered to hand over the vacant possession of the shed premises to the respondents/applicants within 40 days.
2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Rainbow Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd., through its Director Aftab Yousuf filed ejectment application against the appellant/tenant in respect of portion of compound premises E/42-Site, Karachi at the monthly rent of Rs.4,800 excluding electricity and other charges on the ground that the appellant has not deposited the rent since January, 1993 till the filing of ejectment application on 24-5-1993 in the Bank Account No.01/010/3690/9 with United Bank Limited to be operated by two directors of the respondents/applicants Company, Appellant/tenant filed written statement on 24-7-1993 stating therein that the respondents/applicants are owners of ,the premises but Mr. Aftab Yousuf is neither the director/share-holder of the said company nor has any right or interest in the said company and admitted to be tenant of M/s. Rainbow Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd., through its Managing Director Mr. Inam Illahi, till 30-4-1993 and from 1-5-1993 tenant of M/s. Marri Abbasi Hotel as Mr. Inam Illahi has leased out the said compound to the former through Muhammad Banaras as per lease agreement dated 29-4-1993. It is further stated that Aftab Yousuf has no lawful authority to ask the appellant/tenant to deposit rent in the said account as appellant/tenant has paid rent till 30-4-1993 to Managing Director. Mr. Inam Illahi who has also issued clearance certificate to him. It is further stated that the appellant/tenant has not committed default in payment of rent since 1-5-1993 as he has been paying rent to Mr. Muhammad Banaras Abbasi, proprietor of M/s. Murree Abbasi Hotel who has been authorised by Managing .Director Mr. Inam Illahi to collect rent from him. Learned Controller after filing of the objections to the application under section 16(1) of the said Rented Premises Ordinance and hearing the learned counsel, passed the order on 12-8-1993 directing the appellant/tenant to deposit rent in the Court at the rent of Rs.4,800 from May, 1993 to July, 1993 amounting to Rs.14,400 within 60 days and to continue to deposit before the 10th of each month till disposal of case, however, the appellant/tenant filed an application dated 25-9-1993 under section 16(2) of the said Rented Premises Ordinance with a submission to decide first the question as to who was the landlord of the appellant/tenant in view of the contesting claim between M/s. Inam Illahi and Aftab Yousuf. At the same time another application dated 27-9-1993 was also moved by the appellant/tenant to review the order dated 12-8-1993 which application was dismissed with modification allowing 20 days' time to make deposit of rent. On the same date Mr. Inam Illahi one of the directors of the Company filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., which was allowed on 18-7-1994 and was added as applicant No.2 in the ejectment application. The matter came up on 23-8-1994 before learned Rent Controller when he passed the impugned order against which present appeal has been preferred.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the R&P of the case and the case- law. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that learned Rent Controller has erred in directing the appellant to deposit rent as stated in ejectment application. He has further argued that there existed no relationship of tenancy between the appellant and the respondent Aftab Yousuf therefore the ejectment application filed by the latter was not maintainable. He has further argued that learned Rent Controller has completely ignored the lease agreement dated 29- 4-1993 through which entire plot including portion under tenancy with the appellant was leased out to Muhammad Banaras Abbasi. He has further contended that the learned Rent Controller in the order has stated that there has been a dispute between the directors of company therefore the Rent Controller should have first resolved the said dispute before directing the appellant to deposit rent. He has placed reliance upon Rehmatullah v. A.I Muhammad 1993 SCMR 1064, M/s. Mehmood Ahmad v. M.A. Karkar PLD 1983 Quetta 36, Mansoor A.I v. Muhammad Mehmood Alam 1988 M LD 575, Hazur Bux v. Jethanand 1988 MLD 2018 in support of his contention.
4. Learned counsel Mr. Sami Ahmed Tirmizi for respondent No. l has argued that tentative rent order was passed on 12-8-1993 and then on the application of the appellant/tenant the said order was reviewed on 2-8-1994 whereby further period of twenty days was allowed to the appellant/tenant to deposit rent but the latter failed to deposit the rent in Court in terms of order of the Rent Controller therefore the order of striking off defence of the appellant was passed on 23-8-1994. He has argued that all the contentions raised by the appellant/tenant in the appeal were considered according to law and disposed of by the Rent Controller, therefore the impugned order is legal and proper. He has also argued that after review application filed by the appellant was disposed latter had filed C.Ps. Nos.D-2559 of 1993 to C.P. No.D-2568/93 before the Court and the same were disposed of on 22-9-1993. He has further argued that the appellant has not denied that latter was not tenant of the applicants M/s. Rainbow Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd., and has also not disputed the rate of rent in the written statement. The only objection of the appellant was to the locus standi of Mr. Aftab Yousuf one of the Directors of the respondents Company to the filing of the ejectment application against the appellant. He further argued that the appellant has also not complied with the order dated 13-10-1994 passed by this court whereby the appellant was directed to deposit arrears as well as future rent in terms of order of Rent Controller with the modification that the rent had to be deposited with the formula that admitted rent be deposited in cash and Bank guarantee of the remaining amount be furnished and rent deposited was not to be withdrawn till further orders. He also argued that a compromise was also arrived at between the parties in the High Court whereby it was agreed that the appellant/tenant would pay rent alternatively to the above named two Directors for the period stated in the application. The photostat copy which has been filed but the said application has not been signed by any of the parties or their respective counsel.
5. Perusal of the written statement filed by the appellant would show that he has admitted to be tenant of the applicant/respondents Rainbow Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd., and has also nowhere stated that he was not tenant but has stated that he has paid agreed rent to Mr. Inam Illahi one of the Directors of the respondent-company. The appellant does not deny the tenancy but only states that he has paid rent to Mr. Inam Illahi and thereafter he has ceased to be tenant of Inam Illahi as the latter has sub-leased the entire compound to Mr. Muhammad Banaras. The appellant in the written statement stated that he has paid rent to Mr. Inam Illahi on 30-4-1993 therefore the learned Rent Controller in the tentative rent order dated 12-8-1993 directed the appellant/tenant to deposit rent from May, 1993 up to July, 1993 and to continue to deposit rent and the rent so deposited shall not be paid to any one till the disposal of the case but the appellant/tenant even did not make compliance of the said order though he was given due concession by not directing to deposit rent prior to May, 1993 in view of the stand taken that Inam Illahi was entitled to the rent for which due safeguard was kept by the learned Rent Controller that amount of rent so deposited would not be paid to any one till the disposal of the case. The appellant made review application which was dismissed but further twenty days' period was given to him, but he did not make compliance of this subsequent order dated 2-8-1994 and thus he failed to comply with the order of the learned Rent Controller regarding deposit of rent therefore as per order dated 23-8-1994 the defence of the appellant was struck off and he was directed to hand over possession to the appellant. The appellant filed present appeal before this Court and as per order dated 13-10-1994 he was directed to deposit arrears and future rent in terms of the order of Rent Controller with the modification that the rent be deposited with the formula that admitted rent be deposited in cash and Bank Guarantee of the remaining amount be furnished and the rent so deposited was not to be withdrawn, but appellant even did not care to make compliance of the order of this Court.
6. Appellant is neither the owner nor the landlord of the premises and he himself has admitted to be tenant of the premises belonging to M/s. Rainbow Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd. None has come forward from Mr Muhammad Banaras to say that appellant/tenant has paid rent to the former. It appears that in view of dispute between the two Directors of the respondents' company, the appellant/tenant wants to have undue advantage by withholding the rent of the premises on one pretext or the other. The appellant/tenant has no justification to withholding the rent of the premises under any circumstance considering that the M/s. Rainbow Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd. Are the owners and landlords of the premises and no such evidence has been produced by the appellant to rebut the claim of entitlement of rent by the respondents. There is deliberate, wilful default on the part of the appellant therefore he is not entitled to any leniency on the grounds stated. The facts of the case law cited are quite different and. Distinguishable to the facts of the instant case as in the cited cases there was genuine dispute about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties while in the present case the Rent Controller has clearly and specifically held that the appellant was tenant who has also not denied to be tenant of the respondents/applicants, therefore, there would be no need of getting declaration from the Civil Court, about the entitlement of the respondent to rent. In the circumstances contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant has no merit and substance therefore appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellants are directed to put the applicant/respondents in possession within 30 days from the date of this order subject to condition that appellant would deposit rent in Court in terms of order passed on 13-10- 1994.