1. ' This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Ordinance, 1979) is directed against the order, dated 13-3-1995 passed by the learned WI-Rent Controller Karachi East in Rent Case No,640 of 1992 whereby application under section 16(2) of the Ordinance, 1979 was allowed and the defence of the appellant was struck off. He was directed to vacate the premises in dispute within 30 days.
2. ' Briefly stated the respondent filed ejectment application on 31-8-1992 on the ground of default.
3. The appellant filed his written statement. The learned Rent Controller passed tentative rent order on 16-5-1993 which reads as under:--- "Learned Advocate for opponent has filed written statement and has argued that rent is being deposited in Miscellaneous Rent Case No,662 of 1992 since March, 1992 up to date. However, he has admitted the rate of rent and also tenancy with the applicant. In the light of this position when rent is being deposited by the opponent in the above said miscellaneous rent case hence he is directed to deposit the future rent from the month of June, 1993 on or before 10th of each calendar month.
4. That is rent for June, 1993 is to be deposited on or before 10th July, 1993 and onwards in this case instead of miscellaneous rent case. The amount deposited by the opponent in miscellaneous case shall be adjustable. The appellant shall be entitled to withdraw the arrears of rent as well as future rent.
5. ' The applicant has also prayed for deposit of electricity charges by the opponent amounting to Rs,3,866. As such the opponent is directed to deposit the electricity charges of Rs,3,866 in this case within a period of one month from this order. The applicant shall be entitled to withdraw the same."
6. ' Thereafter, the appellant submitted review application on 15-6-1993 seeking review of the second part of the above quoted tentative rent order regarding the deposit of electricity charges.
7. Objections were filed by the respondent and ultimately the learned Rent Controller disposed of the review application as well as the application for extension of time by order, dated 18th December, 1993. The operative part of this order reads as under:--- "Learned counsel for the other side while opposing the contention of the opponent has also produced one payment slip issued by K.E.S.C. Which is undated, but showing the electricity charges from 31-12-1990 to 10-11-1993. I have considered the submissions of both sides and I am of the opinion that where the Court itself has omitted to look into any evidence on record or documents it can recall its order in the interest of justice. Nowhere it is stated by the applicant in his application that the applicant remained in possession from 31-12-1990 to 10-11-1993 as such he is liable to pay the electricity charges produced by the applicant and on the contrary it is stated by the applicant that the shop is lying closed, however, in my opinion it is matter of evidence whether the opponent is liable to pay the electricity charges or not as claimed by the applicant. As such I extend the time for depositing of electricity charges for one month from the date of this order. The opponent is required to deposit the electricity amount as stated in the order on application under section 16(1) within 30 days from the date of this order. The applicant will not be entitled to withdraw this amount. However, parties are also required to lead evidence in the main case on this point if the opponent was liable to pay the electricity charges or not.
8. ' In view of the same, application under section 16(2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 as well as application for recalling the order are hereby dismissed and application of the opponent for extension of time is allowed as discussed above."
9. According to the above order the appellant was supposed to pay the electricity charges within one month on or before 18-1-1994 but actually the payment was made on 20-1-1994. Thus, admittedly he did not comply with the tentative rent order as directed by the learned Rent Controller.
10. Therefore, his defence was struck off and the impugned order was passed directing him to vacate the premises in dispute.
11. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record.
12. ' Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that in para.5 of the ejectment application it has been specifically alleged by the respondent themselves that the electric supply was disconnected from 24-1-1998. Therefore, the question of payment of electricity charges does not arise. Furthermore, the claim of arrears of electricity charges amounting to Rs,3,866 was time- barred. Although in the written statement in reply to para.6 the appellant has denied the alleged claim, but in the same para. Regarding electricity consumption he stated as under:-- "In fact the meter of the electricity is outside of the opponent and the same is installed inside the market and the same is under the control of applicants and they are using this meter for their own activities."
13. ' The learned Rent Controller while passing the impugned order took into consideration the electricity bill and the respective claims of the parties and since that was only a tentative order, therefore, in my humble view there is no justification to call the same as an illegal order. It would be relevant to note that the learned Rent Controller gave due consideration to the respective claims of the parties when he observed in the order, dated 18th May, 1993 that the respondents/(applicant) will not be entitled to withdraw the electricity charges and the parties were also required to lead evidence in the main case on this point as to whether the appellant was liable to pay electricity charges or not. This clearly shows that he formed a tentative view in accordance with law. He did not pass any order for depositing the arrears of rent which were time-barred and, therefore, for this reason the judgments reported as Noor Hussain v. Pakistan Steel (1990 CLC 804), Mst. Shahana Jawed v. Haroon (1991 M LD 1914), Mahfooz Khan through legal heirs v. Mst. Zubeda Khatoon (1991 M LD 1854) and Messrs Asad Brothers v. Ibadat Yar Khan (1991 SCM R 986) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submissions are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. On the other hand the judgment Ali Jan v. Shujauddin (PLD 1985 Kar.
14. 698) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent supports his contention that the appellant failed to comply with the directions of the Rent Controller, therefore, the impugned order is fully justified. Learned counsel for the appellant also frankly conceded that the electricity charges were not deposited within the prescribed time. Accordingly I find no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. The applicant is directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondents within 30 days.