The appellant is the tenant of the respondent and the latter filed Rent Case No. 620 of 1999 in the Court of IIIrd Rent Controller, Karachi, Central for his ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. In that case, on the application of the landlord, the Rent Controller directed the tenant/appellant to deposit monthly rent arrears from May, 1999 to February, 2000 at the rate of Rs.3,000 per month, amounting to Rs.30,000 within 15 days from the date of that order. The order was passed on 22-2-2000.
2. On another application of the respondent/landlord under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the Rent Controller held that the tenant before that Court viz the present appellant, had failed to comply with the order dated 22-2-2000,and, therefore, the Rent Controller directed him to put the landlord in vacant possession of the premises in question within 60 days.
This order has been called in question in this appeal.
3. The record shows, and it is not disputed, that the rent amounting to Rs.30,000 was deposited by the present appellant on 9th March, 2000. The Rent. Controller was of the view that the tenant/appellant failed to comply with the order passed on 22-2-2000 because, according to it, the rent was to be deposited within 15 days i.e. By 8th March, 2000.
4. Mr. S. Zaki Muhammad, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the appellant was ill and was under the impression that the order on the application under section 16(1) of the Ordinance was reserved and the next date was given as 8th March, 2000 and when he attended the Court on 8th and came to know about the order, he obtained challan from the Court for deposit of rent but as the bank time was over, he deposited the amount on the next date i.e. 9th Match, 2000. The learned counsel also contended that the order of deposit of rent was invalid and incorrect because it included an order of rent for the month of February by 8th March, which, according to law, could be deposited by 10th of March.
5. Mr. Arif A.I Shah, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the day when the order under section 16(1) of the Ordinance was passed, is also t6be included and the time for deposit, thus, would be by 7th March, 2000, and not 8th March, 2000. This is obviously not in the line with the principles of reckoning time. The 15 days period ended on 8th March, 2000.
6. Mr. Arif A.I Shah further contended that there was a default in deposit of the arrears of rent and the Rent Controller had no powers to condone this default. In support of his contention he cited the decisions in the following cases:--
(1) Ghulam Muhammad Khan Lundkhor v. Safdar A.I (PLD 1967 SC 530), (2) Javaid Iqbal v. Rana Muzaffar Khan (1976 SCMR 229), (3) Mushtaq Hussain v. Muhammad Shafi (1979 SCMR 496), (4) Zia Ullah Shah v. Syed Riaz Ahmed (1981 SCMR 538), (5) Zafar Qureshi and others v. Kh. Maqsoodul Hassan and others (1982 SCMR 392), (6) M. Nazir v. S. Shaukat A.I (1982 SCMR 985), (7) Akhtar Jehan Begum and others v. Muhammad Azam Khan (PLD 1983 SC 1), (8) Mst. Anees Manzar Kazmi v. Mst.
Amir Jehan Begum (1989 SCMR 235), (9) Mst. Akhtari Begum v. Muhammad Yamin (1988 CLC 2051),
(10) Ghulam Yasin v. Bakhshomal (PLD 1973 Karachi 228), (11) Nazir Ahmed v. Holaram (1985 CLC 41)
(12) Salahuddin and others v. Additional District Judge, Kohat and others (1989 CLC 1658).
7. Almost all the cases cited by Mr. Arif A.I Shah, particularly cases decided by the Supreme Court, are in respect of the proceedings under the old law, viz, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. In that law the corresponding provision was section 13(6) of that Ordinance and the order of striking off the defence of the tenant was to be made by the Rent Controller in case "if the tenant makes default in the compliance of such an order" i.e. The order passed by the Rent Controller under that provision for deposit of rent arrears etc. Accordingly to section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, the defence of the tenant is to be struck off "if the tenant has failed to deposit the arrears of rent or monthly rent under subsection (1). " Unidentical interpretation is the effect of diversity of syntax and words used in two provisions of law.
8. In the present case, the appellant/tenant was directed under section 16(1) of the Ordinance, to deposit Rs.30,000 as arrears of rent within 15 days and he deposited this amount on 9th March, 2000, i.e. On 16th day of the order. Despite the fact that the act of depositing the arrears of rent was a bit beyond the 15 days time, this deposit of rent was under section 16(1) of the Ordinance.
Wording of subsection (2) of section 16 itself ignores such a technicality. The appellant/tenant obviously deposited the rent in pursuance of the order passed by the Rent Controller under section 16(1) of the Ordinance.
9. The impugned order of the Rent Controller is based on unwary interpretation of the provisions of law. It cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
The matter is remanded to the Rent Controller for further proceedings in the case.