Find a Lawyer

‑‑ Ss. 21 & 16 ‑Ejectment‑Stay granted by High Court subject ac, clearance of arrears of rent and payment of current rent 11v tenant by a fixed date‑Tenant depositing arrear of rent but failing to deposit current rent by prescribed (late‑Order of deposit of rent not being a tentative rent order under S. 16, High Court not obliged to recall its order of stay if sufficient cause shown for omission.

Shaikh Mushtaque Ali for Appellant.

Siraj Ahmad for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 7th March, 1982.

This appeal was admitted on 2nd December, 1980 and on 8th March, I . I, while hearing the stay application, ordered the appellant to deposit arrears of rent for the period from August, 1976 to 28th February, 1 amounting to Rs. 5,500 at Rs. 100 per month within 3 months from :D date of the order. The appellant was also ordered to deposit current it by 10th of each month. It seems that the appellant has deposited _ arrears amounting to Rs. 5,500 within the above period. However rent for the two months was tendered with the Nazir but was not ,,opted on the ground that it was not tendered on or before 10th of each month. The appellant has filed C. M. A. 1750/81 for the condonation of toy in depositing rent of the above two months. Whereas, the respondent has filed an application under section 16 (2) of the Sind Rented anises Ordinance:. 1979 for vacating the stay order dated 8th March, 1981.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that ion the above order was dictated in the Court he did not understand :it the current rent was also to be deposited before depositing of the arrears rent and because of that he had instructed his client to deposit it including the current rent within the period specified for the rears of rent.

On the other hand, it has been contended by Mr. Siraj Ahmad cued counsel for the respondent that this was the negligence on part of the learned counsel for the appellant, which is not efficient ground for condoning the delay. In support of the above argument, he has referred to some of the authorities. It will suffice observe that the order dated 8th March, 1981, was not a tentative rent order in terms of section. 16 of the Ordinance as no such application was pending before this Court. However, as a condition of the granting of the stay the appellant was put .to terms which inter alia included depositing of arrears as well as current rent. In my view this court is not obliged to recall tile order of the stay if sufficient cause is shown for the omission of deposit current rent as section 16 of the Ordinance cannot be pressed into service. Since the appellant has substanti ally complied with the order, namely, he has deposited the arrears amounting to Rs. 5.500 within the time specified in the above order and that there was delay in the tendering of the rent for two months amounting to Rs. 200 in my view, it will not be just and proper to vacate the stay and to render the appeal infructuous. I will, therefore, allow the C. M. A. Application 279/81 on payment of R s. I00 as costs to the learned counsel for the respondent. C. M. A. 2289/81 is dismissed in view of the above order. The above cost is to be paid within two weeks from today.

M.Y.H. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.