1. ' This appeal is directed against the order dated 24-11-1997, passed by the learned Second Rent Controller Karachi Central, whereby Rent Application No,592 of 1992, filed by the respondent was allowed and the appellant was directed to vacate the demised premises within 60 days.
2. ' The respondent sought ejectment of the appellant from Flat No,9/F/L Hnd floor Squl Aman Housing Project Block-G, North Nazimabad, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as the demised premises) on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide requirement of the respondent.
3. The appellant filed written statement and contested the matter. Learned Rent Controller settled the following issues:
(1) Whether the case premises is required in good faith by the applicant for her bona fide personal use?
(2) Whether the opponent has committed default in making payment of rent to the applicant?
4. (3)
5. ' Thereafter, affidavits in evidence were filed by both the parties and the learned trial Court answered the issues pertaining to bona fide requirement as well as default in payment of rent in the affirmative and consequently the impugned order was passed.
6. ' Pre-admission notice was given to the respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. ' Learned counsel for the respondent at the very outset pointed out that the appellant has failed to comply with the tentative rent order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 11-2-1993, and he referred to the following paragraph of the order: ' The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted. The rate of rent i,e, Rs,1,300 p.m. Is also not denied. The disputed period of arrears of rent is w,e,f, February 1991 to December, 1991. The opponent has not produced any proof that he has paid the monthly rents to the applicant. The opponent is hereby directed to deposit the arrears of rent for the disputed period Rs,1300 p.m. In the sum of Rs,14,300 on or before 10-3-1993 in this Court. The applicant shall not be entitled to withdraw the aforesaid amount of Rs,14,300 until disposal of its case. The opponent is further directed to deposit the rent for the month of February 1993 on or before 10th March, 1993. The monthly rents deposited in M.R.C. No,131 of 1992 by the opponent w,e,f, January 1992 and onwards till January 1993 shall be transferred in this case and shall be adjusted towards arrears of rent. The opponent is further directed to continue to deposit the further monthly rents for - succeeding months on or before 10th of every English Calander month until decision of this case."
8. ' Learned counsel for the respondent further clarified that in miscellaneous rent case Rs,15,600 were deposited instead of Rs,16,900. Likewise, the rent for the following months were not deposited as directed by the learned Rent Controller which is evident from the following statement-- "Arrears of rent from February 1991 to December, 1991Rs. 14,300 Rent for the month of January, 1992 to January, 1993 Rs. 16,900 Rent deposited in M. R. CRs. 15,600 instead of Rs. 16,900 ' Details of rent deposited, on following months against tenteative rent order, MonthDate of deposit August, 199312-9-1993 September, 199311-10-1993 October, 1993 November, 199313-12-1993 December, 199311-1-1994 January, 1993 16-2-1994 February, 199417-3-1994 March, 199413-4-1994 April, 1994 May, 199212-6-1994 June, 199412-7-1994 July, 199416-8-1994 August, 199412-9-1994 September, 199413-10-1994 October, 199413-11-1994 November, 199411-12-1994 Decemebr January, 199512-2-1995 February, 199512-3-1995 March, 1995 April, 1995 May, 199512-6-1995 June, 199511-7-1995 July, 199513-8-1995 August, 1995 September, 199515-10-1995 October, 199512-11-1995 November, 199513-12-1995 December, 199514-1-1996 January, 199614-2-1996 February, 199612-3-1996 March, 199611-4-1996 April, 1996 May 1996 June, 199611-7-1996 July, 1996 August, 199612-9-1996 September, 199614-10-1996 October, 1996 November, 199611-12-1996 December, 1996 January, 199716-2-1996 February, 199712-3-1997 March, 199712-4-1997 April, 1997 May, 199711-6-1997 June, 199711-7-1997 July, 199712-8-1997 August, 1997 September, 199713-10-1997 ' The above alleged defaults also find support from the Nazir report date 1-11-1997. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the above payments but he has given the following statement regarding payment made by the appellant: "DETAIL AMOUNT DEPOSIT Amount lying with respondent as fixed deposit.Rs. 10,000 Rent received by money order in FebruaryRs.1,300 Amount deposited in M. R. C. 131 of 1992 in advance--.
9. Amount deposited under the order of application under section 16(1)Rs. 15,600 Amount deposited in Rent case after passing Rent orderRs.76,700 Total: Rs.1,19,200 Amount due on applicant From March 1992 to March, 1998 @ Rs.1300 per month. Rs. 93,600 Amount over paid.Rs. 25,600.
10. From a plain reading of the Nazirs report it is evident that the appellant did not comply with the tentative rent order as directed. Accordingly, in the absence of any explanation he is liable to be declared a wilful defaulter. In M/s Crescent Publication Service v. S. Muhammad Younus and others 1980 SCM R 779, with was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even one default is sufficient to bring the case within the mischief of section 13(6) of the Ordinance XVII of 1979. Therefore, on this score alone the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed. The appellant is directed to vacate the premises, and hand over vacant possession to the respondent within sixty (60) days but this would be subject to payment of rent regularly according to law.