' This Petition has been filed by Ahmed Abbas impugning the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court to R.C. No,195 of 1997 and F.R.A. No,256 of 2001 passed by the VIIth Rent Controller, Karachi East and IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi East respectively.
2. The relationship and the rate of rent are admitted. The application under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. 1979 was filed on the ground of personal requirement as well as for default. On 1-10-1997 the trial Court passed a tentative order whereby the petitioner was directed to .Deposit the rent w,e,f, October, 1997 in the Court as provided under section 16(1) of the Ordinance, He was also directed to adjust the amount deposited by the petitioner into the Miscellaneous Rent Case No,273 of 1997 earlier to the tentative order. Admittedly the petitioner deposited the first rent in compliance of the Court order on 8-10-1997 in the Rent Case No,195 of 1997. However subsequently for about 2 years he deposited the rent in violation of the Court orders in the Miscellaneous Rent Case No,273 of 1997. This practice was continued by the petitioner and at last the respondent No,1 moved an application under section 16(1) of the Ordinance for striking off the defence. The petitioner filed his objections to the application under section 16(1) of the Ordinance wherein it was stated by the petitioner that due to the bona fide technical mistake, he deposited the rent in MRC instead of the main case as ordered by the Court. The trial Court was not satisfied with this explanation and so by judgment dated 17-12-1999 ordered for the ejectment of the petitioner. The petitioner not being satisfied with this order filed the First Reni Appeal No,18 of 2002 where the Appellate Court concurred with the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal on 29-4-2002. Hence. This petition.
3. Heard the counsel and examined the judgment and also the merits of the case. The three judgments have been referred by the counsel for the petitioner, (1) Noor Muhammad v. Mehdi (PLD 1991 SC 711), (2) Zaheerullab Khan v. Abeda Begum (1999 CLC 771) and (3) Aleemuddin v.
Muhammad Aamir Gazdar (Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,715-K of 1998), an unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. A perusal of these judgments show that the conduct of the tenant in each case has to be looked into as to whether he acted contumaciously or it was on account of simple error that the rent was not deposited in accordance with the Court order but in the earlier proceedings. From the facts, it is obvious, that the conduct of the petitioner is absolutely uncalled for, violative of the order of the trial Court and contumacious, as for about 2 years he kept on violating the Court order and therefore, it cannot be said that it was on account of an error nor it can be accounted as a technical error in depositing the rent. In my view, the Courts below have rightly come to the findings and no reason is found for interference into the judgment under the writ jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.