1. ' This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereafter referred to as the Ordinance, 1979), is directed against the order dated 2-11-1995 passed by the learned IVth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller (Central) Karachi (Mr. Moula Bux Khoso) in Rent Case No,117 of 1995 whereby the defence of the appellants was struck off and they were directed to vacate the premises in question and hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent.
2. ' The appellants No,1 and 2 are tenants in respect of Orders Nos.4 and 5 respectively on a portion of Plot No,DP-56 Sector 12/C, Industrial Area, North Karachi Town Ship. The agreed monthly rent between the parties isRs,1,633 for each shed. The respondent filed Rent Case No,117 of 1995 against the appellants on three grounds, namely, default w.e.f, July, 1994; subletting; and causing damage to the respondent's property. The respondent also filed application under section 16(1) of the Ordinance, 1979 on 4-4-1995 wherein she claimed rent from July, 1994 to March, 1995 amounting toRs,14,697 for each shed. The appellants in their objections which were submitted on 20-4-1995 claimed that they were depositing rent in Miscellaneous Rent Cases Nos.560, and 561 of 1994. The Nazir's report confirmed the fact that they had deposited the rent upto March, 1995. On 2-5-1995 the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:- "Therefore, in my view, there is no need for direction to the Opponent to deposit rent upto March, 1995. So far further rent the Opponents are directed to deposit the same in Court on the same rate before 10th of each calender month. In the circumstances the Opponents are directed to deposit further rent in this Court as already discussed."
3. ' The respondent submitted application under section 16(2) of the Ordinance, 1979 on 31-7-1995 wherein default in compliance of the tentative order was alleged. The appellants in their objection took-up the plea that upto May, 1995 they had deposited the rent in Court and further submitted that they were under the impression that in June and July the Courts closed and as soon as they came to know that the Courts were not closed they deposited the rent on 3-8-1995. However, the learned Rent Controller passed the impugned order.
4. ' I have heard Miss Reshida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Hassan Akber, learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the record.
5. ' Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order on the ground that it has been passed without application of judicial mind and being perfunctory is bad in law. He further submitted that the tentative rent order, dated 2nd May, 1995 was vague and ambiguous as there were no direction for deposit of arrears of rent or for the current month i.e,, month of May, 1995. In support of his submission he referred to the following details of deposit of rent in terms of the tentative rent order:-- { S.NoDate of depositAmount deposited 1 8-5-1995 Rs.3,266 2 7-6-1995 Rs.3,266 3 3-8-1995 Rs.3,266 4 7-8-1995 Rs.3,266 {{TABLE}} ' Lastly he submitted that the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction application as framed and instituted mainly because of misjoinder of parties as well as causes of action.
6. ' Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per record rent for the month of March, 1995 was deposited on 9-4-1995. The rent for the month of April was to be deposited in Court before 10th and it was deposited on 8th May, 1995. The appellants produced two receipts one is, dated 8th May, 1995 which clearly shows that rent for the month of April, 1995 was deposited and the other receipt dated 3-8-1995 indicate payment of rent for the month of May, 1995. These two payments indicate that rent for May, 1995 was deposited within time. The other receipt dated 3-8-1995 shown that rent was deposited on this date after the application for sticking of defence was moved by the respondent. The payment made on 3rd August, 1995 was for the month of June, 1995. Thus' the rent for the month of June which should have been deposited before 10th July, 1995 was not deposited which resulted in default for which no reasonable explanation has been offered by the appellants.
7. ' I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record as well as the provisions of law and the case-law cited by them. So far the maintainability of the rent application is concerned there is no force in this submission for the simple reason that looking to the pleadings it appears that even if separate applications were filed by the respondent against the appellants common questions of law and fact would have arisen for determination. Therefore, this submission of the learned counsel is technical in nature based on procedural aspect of the proceedings and it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahsanul Haq v. Abdur Rahim (1979 SCM R 338) that such technical objections are not applicable to proceedings in rent cases. This judgment was followed by a Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khursheed Ahmed and 28 others v. Nadeem Iqbal and 23 others (1985 SCM R 40).
8. Learned counsel for the appellants also failed to point out as to what prejudice, if any, was caused to the appellants on account of their being joined as opponents in the same proceedings.
9. Furthermore, technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not applicable to proceedings in rent cases. Therefore, the plea regarding misjoinder of parties and the cause of action is misconceived. Regarding remaining submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants suffice it to observe that at the appellate stage the appellants have changed their plea which is not permissible in law. It was not agitated by them before the Rent Controller that the tentative rent order was vague or in any case it was not possible for them to make its strict compliance. The only plea taken up by them was in respect of summer vacations of Court and nothing else as was rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents. This plea seems to be afterthought and has been rightly rejected by the learned Rent Controller.
10. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that finding no merit in this appeal it is dismissed in limine.
11. The appellants are directed to hand over vacant possession to the respondent within sixty days and till then should continue paying rent regularly.
12. Ejectment upheld.