' This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned 1st Rent Controller. Vlirpurkhas on 25-8-1996 whereby he allowed the application moved by the respondent/applicant under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and struck off the defence of the appellant/opponent directing him to vacate the premises in question bearing Shop No,7, Block B, Mirwah Gorchani and hand over its peaceful possession to the landlord/respondent within sixty days.
2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent had filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 before the 1st Rent Controller, Mirpurkhas on 18-10-1994, alleging therein that the appellant/opponent Jan Muhammad was his tenant since 1982 and he earlier paid Rs,50 p.m. Which was thereafter mutually enhanced to Rs,80. The tenant was regularly paying this rent till 1991 but thereafter, he stopped paying rent from January 1992. The respondent/landlord demanded from the appellant/opponent either to pay the arrears of rent or vacate the premises.
The tenant filed a F.C. Suit No,46 of 1994 in about April 1994. During the pendency of the matter the tenant Jan Muhammad died on 14-1-1995 and his L.Rs, were not brought on the record but one of his son Abdullah contested the matter.
3. The objections were filed by the tenant to the Ejectment Application wherein he challenged the maintainability of this application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1978 as according to him no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between them. However, at the time of passing the tentative rent order on 16-4-1996 the Rent Controller by a detailed order held that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant from the material placed before him. The tenant did not challenge this order by sought extension of time for depositing the arrears of rent even after the expiry of the time of 30 days fixed by the Rent Controller finally, the Rent Controller by the impugned order, struck off the defence of the appellant/tenant. Hence this appeal.
4. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that Rent Controller had failed to decide the relationship of landlord and tenant and passed the tentative rent order on 16-4-1996. According to him since this initial order being wrong, all the subsequent orders were also wrong. It has been argued that it was the duty of the Rent Controller to have framed an issue of relationship of landlord and tenant and in case there existed such relationship between the parties only then the tentative rent order could be passed. He has relied on 1987 M LD 3269; 1989 CLC 1926; 1992 SCMR 1147 and 1995 CLC 564. He further argued that although tentative rent order was illegal yet the tenant had complied with the same and deposited all the arrears of rent amounting to Rs,4,400 with the Nazir of the Court as directed by the learned Rent Controller hence there was no justification for striking off the defence of the appellant/opponent and order to vacate the premises within 60 days. Thus, the impugned order was bad in the eye of law hence it should be set aside.
5. Admittedly, the applicant had filed ,a F.C. Suit No,46 of 1994 wherein he had alleged that despite his paying rent to the opponent/landlord who bent upon evicting him (appellant). Thus, the relationship of landlord and tenant definitely existed between the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent has rightly pointed out that the question of framing an issue of relationship then does not arise. Thus the Rent Controller was justified in passing the tentative rent order. Moreover, according to him if the appellant had any objection to the passing of the tentative rent order he could have agitated it. On the contrary, he had obtained time for depositing the arrears of rent, which was allowed to him although the time fixed for payment of arrears of rent could not be extended by the Rent Controller under any circumstances. Reference was made to 1985 CLC 1426.
Thus, there is nothing wrong with the impugned order dated 25-8-1996I and the appeal having no merit should be dismissed.
6. The R & P shows that Mr.Faiz Rasool Rashidi the then Rent Controller while passing the tentative rent order on 16-4-1996 had considered merit of the entire matter where the appellant/opponent was not able to prove the rent paid by him, although he had alleged that he had paid rent to the respondent, hence the relationship of landlord and tenant was established. Thus, there was no necessity to frame any issue to establish such relationship. There was, therefore, no fault in passing the tentative rent order which was proper and legal. In the authority reported in 1987 M LD 3269; it has been held that the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant must be framed first. In the reported case in 1989 CLC 1926 it has been held that the Rent Controller must decide the issue of relationship first before passing the rent order. As already mentioned, the relationship of landlord and tenant was established, therefore, there was no necessity of framing such an issue. These authorities are, therefore, not applicable to the appellant's case. Since there was no defect with the tentative rent order dated 16-4-1996 the authority reported in 1992 SCMR 1147 where it is held that if the basic order was wrong all further orders are also wrong, is also not helpful to the appellant.
Lastly, the case reported in 1995 CLC 564 (Muhammad Asghar and others v. Khala Din) is in no way applicable in this matter. The reported case pertains the K.P.T. Where it was held that the K.P.T. Was immuned from the application of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 by virtue of the Notification dated 15-3-1981. .
6. It is pertinent to note that Mr. Faiz Rasool the then learned Rent Controller passed the rent order on 16-4-1996 that the arrears of rent at Rs,80 p.m. From January 1992 be deposited within 30 days and future rent regularly on or before the 10th of every calendar month. The period was to expire on 16-5-1996 but the compliance was not made and matter was adjourned to 21-5-1996 and no application of any sort was moved by the appellant for condoning the delay. The matter was thereafter, adjourned to 26-5-1996 and then to 29-5-1996 but no request for extension of time was made. On 2-7-1996 the appellant came up with a request that he has not been able to arrange for money and he may be allowed to deposit the outstanding amount (today) i,e, on 2-7-1997 and notice to other side was ordered and was adjourned to 9-7-1997 and on this date he allowed the appellant/opponent to deposit the amount condoning the delay. This order by itself was wrong and unwarranted as the Rent Controller had no authority to extend time once fixed by him for depositing rent arrears. This has been held in clear words in 1985 CLC 1426 (Agha Mahboob Shah v.
Zareena Khawaja).
7. Mr. Mian Mohsin Raza the Rent Controller on 25-8-1996 on the application of the respondent/applicant ordered ejectment allowing this application under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rutted Premises Ordinance. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that this order by him could not be passed as it is the rectification of the order dated 9-7-1997 passed by his predecessor. This contention of the counsel for the applicant has no force as it has been held in 1983 CLC 985 that an illegal order could be rectified. Thus, the Rent Controller was justified in passing the impugned order which is legal and proper and cannot be interfered with hence the appeal merits no consideration.
' For the above reasons, I had dismissed the appeal in limine on 26-5-1997.