' RANA BHAGWAN DAS, J.---Leave to appeal is claimed against the identical orders dated 24-4- 2000 passed by learned Sindh High Court dismissing F.R.As. Nos.699 and 700 of 1998 filed by the petitioners against eviction orders.
' Respondent sought eviction of the petitioners from two shops premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and requirement of the tenanted premises for bona fide use and occupation of her husband. Both the petitioners resisted their eviction and denied default in payment of rent and personal requirement. They admitted occupation of the shop premises but pleaded that one Mst.
Murad Begum was the owner of the disputed property who has filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of documents, specific performance and permanent injunction in the Court of Senior Civil Judge No. VII, Karachi (East). They added that notice relating to change of ownership in terms of section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) was not served on them but they were regularly depositing rent in the office of the Rent Controller in the name of Mst. Murad Begum.
3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and consideration of relevant aspects, learned Rent Controller by his order dated 24-1998 directed each of the petitioners to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.250 per month after adjustment of the amounts already deposited by them and to deposit future rent at the abovesaid rate on or before 10th of each calendar month. Admittedly, the petitioners did not comply with this order and instead filed review applications before the Rent Controller which were dismissed as being misconceived. On applications of the respondent for striking off the defence of the petitioners learned Rent Controller by a consolidated order struck off the defence of the petitioners and dismissed- the applications for recall of the order directing the deposit of rent tentatively: This order was assailed before the High Court but without any success, hence these petitions for leave to appeal.
4. Mr. Ahmadullah Faruqi, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the. High Court wrongly observed that the F.R.As. Were barred by limitation; that the petitioners had filed appeals against the orders passed on applications for review of the tentative rent order and lastly that their defence could not be lawfully struck off without deciding the question of relationship of landlord and tenant as raised by them.
5. Adverting to the first contention from the record we find that the order impugned before the High Court is dated 17-8-1998; certified copy was applied on the same day and supplied on 5-9-1998, thus, the F.R.As. Preferred on 2-10-1998 appear to have been filed within time and to this extent we modify the observations made by the High Court.
6. Taking up the second contention of the learned counsel, observation of the High Court to the effect that the appeals were directed against the order dismissing applications for review is of no consequence as in fact the impugned order has disposed of the applications for review as well as applications of the respondent for striking off the defence of the petitioners for willful non- compliance of the orders as to the deposit of rent tentatively.
7. Reverting to the last contention, we find from the record that though the petitioners had taken the plea that Mst. Murad Begum happened to be the owner of the premises the only assertion made was that she had filed a suit for declaration, specific performance and permanent injunction against the respondent which was sub justice before a Court of law. This ground hardly entitles the petitioners to deny relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In any event, petitioners having admitted to be the tenants of the premises and depositing rent at the rate of Rs.250 per month in the office of the Rent Controller may be considered as the tenants of the premises which are owned and possessed by the respondent. Indeed, the petitioners did not question the right, title and ownership of the respondent in respect of the tenements. In our view the issue raised by Mst. Murad Begum before a Civil Court did not disentitle the respondent from claiming the rent of the premises from the petitioners on the averments that they were tenants of the premises and that a notice of change of ownership in terms of section 18 of the Ordinance had been duly served on them. It is urged that Mst. Murad Begum acquired ownership of the premises from one Umar. Din in pursuance of an agreement of sale which in our view does not prima facie confer any right on the petitioners to deny the title of the landlady. It, was, therefore, not necessary in the circumstances to strike down an issue relating to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Orders for deposit of rent being proper and valid on the face of it, to our mind it was incumbent upon the petitioners to comply with the same without any reservation. These orders in fact did not suffer from any legal infirmity- or want of jurisdiction. In any event, these were provisional in nature and were subject to final and authoritative decision of the sent Controller.
Since petitioners disregarded the orders dated 2-4-1998 of the Rent Controller contumaciously and without any lawful justification, their defence was rightly struck off as held by the learned Rent Controller and upon appeals by the High Court.
8. For the aforesaid facts and reasons no case is made out for interference by this Court in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
' Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.