ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, J.-- This First Rent Appeal has been filed under Section 24 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1993 against the order passed by the Controller of Rent, Clifton Cantonment in Rent Case No. 75 of 2000.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that respondent is the landlord of Flat No. 5, constructed on Plot No. 26-C, 4th Zamzama Commercial Lane, Phase V, DHA, Karachi. The monthly rent of the said Flat was Rs.5,000/-, which was exclusive of electricity, gas, water and conservancy charges. It is the contention of the landlord that rent has not been paid from January, 1999 to August, 2000. Certain amount was paid which was adjusted. According to landlord non-payment of rent was occurred for 15 months.
3. The appellant/tenant has denied all the allegations and specifically stated that he has not failed to pay rent. He has insisted that no default has occurred. Apparently, .An application under Section 17(a) was moved wherein it was stated that a sum of Rs.95,000/- was due and payable. The objections were filed whereafter the Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- from July,. 1999 to December, 2000. The tenant was also directed to deposit future rent. Since the tenant failed to deposit the amount as directed an application was made under Section 18(a) by the landlord that the defence of the tenant may be struck off and the landlord may be put in possession. Based upon this application the impugned order was passed which is now the basis of this Appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant has relied upon rent order and has insisted that the Rent Controller has clearly stated in his order that the claim of both the parties could not be proved unless the same is testified through proper course of evidence. According to him matters regarding arrears of rent is to be decided after recording of evidence of the parties. Based upon the observations the Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit the rent in Court. Since the tenant failed to deposit rent as ordered, therefore, by order dated 10.3.2001 his (sic) to vacate the premises by handing over its vacant and peaceful physical possession to the landlord. .This appeal was filed on 12.4.2001 whereas the order was passed on 10.3.2001.
5. Learned counsel for the tenant has insisted that he did not deposit the. Amount as he has already paid the amount and it is the order dated 4.1.2001 that he has challenged if that was so then the counsel should have immediately moved an Appeal after the order was passed on 4.1.2001. He waited till the order dated 10.3.2001 was passed and even then a month passed before this Appeal was filed.
6. There is substance in the line of arguments put forward by the respondent/landlord as clearly it is incumbent upon the appellant/tenant to deposit the amount by virtue of order passed in Jan., 2001. If he felt aggrieved against that order he should have immediately moved an appeal which he has failed to do.
7. Accordingly, this First Rent Appeal is dismissed.