1. ' The facts leading to present appeal are as under:-- ' The respondent had filed Rent Application No,773 of 1995 stating therein that he was residing as a tenant on the 1st floor of a house situated on Plot No,B-319, Block-N, North Nazimabad, Karachi, while the ground floor was occupied by two tenants. The front portion of the ground floor was in occupation of one Mushir Ahmed Siddiqui at a monthly rent of Rs,1,400 while the rare portion was. In possession of one Amjad Ali. Mr. Mushir Ahmed served in Pakistan Television Corporation and had transferred to various places such as Multan, Peshawar, Lahore and his family wanted to establish some business in the tenancy in his possession by giving advertisements in Newspapers. They gave an advertisement of Marriage Beauru in the name and style of Style Life, an another business was that of Specialist Name-Plate Maker in the name and style of Home Care Services. The previous landlord and Mohalla people objected to these activities and a rent case was tiled by the previous landlord which was registered as a Rent Case No,327 of 1989 which was allowed. Mushir Ahmed Siddiqui filed Appeal being First Rent Appeal No,157 of 1991. The applicant purchased the house mentioned above with consent of Mr. Mushir Ahmed and Mr. Amjad. Both the tenants of the ground floor had agreed to vacate the premises. The tenent of the rare portion vacated the tenement in his possession while Mr. Mushir Ahmed sub-letted the premises to one Majid Latif. The applicant's family comprises of her husband, two daughters and four sons out of which two of her sons namely Farooq Ahsan and Nusrat Ahsan are residing in rented houses. The applicant had purchased the house with sole intention to accommodate her sons on ground floor which consists of two portions. All the four children .Fiving with the applicant are of marriageable age but applicant cannot solemnize their marriage due to lack of accommodation. Applicant had issued notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to opponent and the reply of the notice was received. In spite of service of notice the opponent did not pay rent and other charges.
2. Therefore, the rent amounting to Rs,12,600 water charges Rs,524. Sui Gas charges Rs,5,004 and electricity charges of Rs,1,474 was to be paid by the opponent. An amount of Rs,19,602 is to be paid by the opponent. The premises in dispute was also required by applicant for her personal use and for use of her family.
3. ' The opponent (appellant) had filed written statement stating that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. One Ahsan Ahmed had issued letter/intimation to the opponent demanding rent and vacation of the premises and had failed to supply proof. The application was hit by section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The rent was paid to Mr. Rasheed Ahmed Anis from whom he had acquired the rented premises. After the intimation/demand of rent the opponent started depositing the rent in Court vide M.R.C. No,512 of 1995 in the joint name of Rasheed Ahmed Anis and Ahsan Ahmed. The grounds of eviction set forth in.Present application were also subject-matter of the Rent Case No,327 of 1989. And First Rent Appeal No,157 of 1991 which has not attained finality. The principle of res judicata was attracted. The electricity charges .Payable directly to the K.E.S.C. Do not form part of rent. The opponent/appellant has also given more facts in parawise comments of his written statement.
4. ' Learned II Rent Controller, Karachi Central in order, dated 8-12-1997 struck of the defence of the opponent and directed him to vacate the premises within 30 days from the date of order and to hand over its possession to the applicant. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.
5. Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Rent Controller without determining the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties proceeded to pass orders under section 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, dated 29-5-1997. This order was incorrect and application under section 151, C.P.C. Read with section 16(1)(2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was filed and the respondent filed her counter-affidavit through her husband/attorney. The respondent subsequently, filed an application under section 16(2), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and the appellant filed objections that no rent is due and payable as was evident from the up-to-date deposit receipts. The Rent Controller struck of the defence of the appellant and dismissed the application with one single stroke. The order was passed without determining the jurisdiction. The learned Rent Controller has not. Discussed the fact of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Reliance has been placed on decisions reported in PLD 1982 Lah. 519, 1984 CLC 1333 and 1980 CLC 1163. There was distinction between words "owner" and "landlord". Section 2 has not been referred. The appellant had never paid rent to the respondent and there is no agreement between the parties. The rent order was factually incorrect. Reliance has been placed on decisions reported in PLD 1978 Kar. 145, 1996 CLC (Karachi) 1312. The appellant is a party in First Rent Appeal No,157 of 1997 pending before this Court. The Rent Controller without proper foundation calculated the amount of Rs,32,200 which was not due and, payable by the appellant. There was no default as the total rent deposited by appellant comes to Rs,43,800 08 and Rs,45,200 including January, 1998. Thus, the amount deposited w,e,f, from July, 1995 to January, 1998 will show that there is no default. Reliance has been placed on decisions reported in PLD 1991 SC 711, 1988 SCMR 970, 1991 MLD 1390, 1994 CLC 1094, 1.995 CLC 23 and 1'991 SCMR 64. In the order, dated 29- 5-1997 directions were given for deposit of arrears from July, 1995 to May, 1997 for 23 months whereas on 8-12-1997 the period mentioned is from June, 1997. The order suffers from mathematical miscalculation. The Nazir's report had revealed amount deposited in M.R.C. No,74 of 1996 was Rs,8,400 whereas, amount deposited in R.C. No,763 of 1995 is Rs,9,800 Amount deposited in M.R.C. No,512 of 1995 is Rs,5,600. If all total deposits are calculated with the amount of deposit made in January, 1998, it comes to Rs,45,200.
6. ' The learned Advocate for respondent has supported the order of learned Rent Controller and has placed reliance on decisions reported in 1979 SCMR 496-497, 1981 SCMR 538-539, PLD 1983 SC 1, 1985 SCMR 24-25, 1986 SCMR 751, 1989 CLC (Karachi) 157-158, 1990 CLC 904-90, 1993 CLC 1696-1697, 1995 CLC 1722-1723, 1995 MLD 422, 1993 SCMR 1360 and 1990 CLC 661.
7. ' The order of learned Ind Rent Controller, Karachi Central, dated 29-5-1997 is as under:-- "From the perusal of record it reveals that applicant has produced transfer/mutation order, notice, dated 12-6-1995 to Mr. Mashir Ahmed Siddiqui about the change of ownership which was duly replied. The opponent has stated that he started depositing rent in M.R.C. No,512 of 1995 in the name of previous landlord and Mr. Ahsan Ahmed but after having knowledge of ownership of the applicant he started depositing rent in M.R.C. No,74 of 1996 in the name of present applicant.
8. ' In the circumstances mentioned above it is ordered that the opponent shall deposit the arrears of rent from July, 1995 to May, 1997 @ Rs,1,400 per month amounting to Rs,32,200 for twenty-three months in this rent case within thirty days hereof. He is further directed to deposit future monthly rent commencing from June, 1997 on or before 10th of each succeeding calendar month at the same rate i,e, Rs,1,400 (Rupees Fourteen Hundred only) in this rent case. The rent already deposited in M.R.C. No,512 of 1995 and 74 of 1996 be adjusted in this rent case. The applicant is directed not to withdraw the rent of disputed period i,e, from July to August, 1995."
9. ' Subsequently, the same Rent Controller passed the order, dated 8-12-1997, the relevant portion of this order is as under:- "It is a matter of record that this Court vide order, dated 29-5-1997 directed the opponent, on application under section 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 that the opponent shall deposit the arrears of rent from July, 1995 to May, 1997 at the rate of Rs,1,400 per month amounting to Rs,32,200 for 23 months in this rent case within 30 days thereof. He was further directed to deposit future monthly rent commencing from June, 1997 on or before 10th of each succeeding calendar month at the same rate in the rent case and the rent already deposited in M.R.C. No,512 of 1995 and 74 of 1996 be adjusted in this rent case.
10. ' The opponent deposited Rs,8,400 in M.R.C. No,74 of 1996 Rs,5,600 in M.R.C. No,512 of 1995 Rs, 1,400 in the, above matter unto 28-6-1997 Rs .15 ,400 upto 28-6-1997.
11. ' It is evident that the opponent has violated the order of this Court and wilfully and deliberately committed the default in compliance of a legal order.
12. ' Since the points raised by the learned counsel for the opponent were irrelevant and authorities referred were distinguishable from the facts of the present case, therefore, there is no need to discuss them in detail.
13. ' Under the circumstances, I hereby strike off the defence of the opponent and he is directed to vacate the rented premises within 30 days from the date of this order and hand over its peaceful possession to the applicant."
14. ' The premises in question was owned by one Rasheed Ahmed. The respondent/applicant had purchased the same from Mr. Rasheed Ahmed and had sent notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, dated 12-6-1995. The appellant/opponent had sent the reply, dated 18-7-1995. Thereafter, the rent application was filed, but in written statement, dated 12-3- 1996 the appellant/opponent denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. The affidavit-in- evidence was filed by Ahsan Ahmed on 16-1-1997 mentioning that the applicant was his wife and he was her attorney. In spite of all these facts the appellant refused to acknowledge the respondent/applicant as his landlord on the one hand and on the other hand in para.7 of his written statement he has stated as under:-- "It is respectfully added that the answering opponent has regularly been paying rent to the previous landlord namely Mr. Rasheed Ahmed Anis, rent was being deposited in Court whereafter on receiving intimation from Ahsan Ahmed alleged to have purchased the property in question, the answering opponent in order to save himself from the consequences of any possible default sought permission and started depositing rent in joint name of Rasheed Ahmed Anis and Ahsan Ahmed vide M.R.C. No,512 of 1995. Rent was paid to outgoing landlord upto the month of June, 1995."
15. 'The opponent/appellant has admitted that he started depositing rent in the name of Rasheed Ahmed Anis and Ahsan. Ahmed in M.R.C. No,512 of 1995. By depositing rent in name of Ahsan Ahmed who is husband of applicant/respondent, the appellant has accepted the relationship of landlord A and tenant and now he cannot back out and say that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The statutory tenancy commences as soon as the notice under section 18 is received by the tenant. Once it is brought to the notice of tenant that the ownership of premises has changed then it is his responsibility to tender rent to the new landlord. This view is consistent with decision of this Court reported in 1989 CLC 157, that the. Tenant in spite of knowledge of sale of premises in dispute continued to deposit rent in name of previous landlord even after notice of ejectment application it was held that the intention of tenant was not bona fide in depositing the rent in name of previous landlord. It was further held that the finding of Rent Controller with regard to default in payment of rent could not be questioned. Similar are the circumstances of the present case and spite of all knowledge that the ownership of the premises in question had changed, he continued to deposit rent in the name of previous owner. The intention of opponent/appellant was not bona fide and,, therefore, the finding of the Rent Controller on the point of default and subsequent, order of striking off his defence cannot be interfered with. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed alongwith listed application being C.M.A. No,1 t9 of 1998.