Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal Nos. 919 and 920 of 1986, decided on 31st January, 1987.

--Ss. 15 & 16(1)(2)--Striking off defence--Tenants admittedly failed to comply with tentative rent order passed by Rent Controller--Pleas of tenants that they were not aware of the tentative order of Rent Controller repelled--Deputy of tenant to apprise himself about the order and progress of case--Excuse for non-compliance of such order, having not been fortified by producing cogent documentary evidence on record, defence of tenants, held, was rightly struck off by Rent Controller in circumstances.

Shahabuddin Memon for Appellant.

Mumtaz Ahmed Sheikh for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 18th January, 1987.

These first rent appeals are directed against the order dated 30-9-1986 passed by the IVth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller (East) Karachi, whereby he struck off the defence of the appellants and directed the appellants to hand over vacant possession of the premises in dispute within 30 days from the date of the order. The respondent is the landlord of the premises and the appellants are tenants respect of the shops. I intend to dispose of these two appeals by this judgment as the point of law are similar.

The facts leading to the filing of the above appeals are that the respondent is owner/landlord of commercial premises Shops Nos. 8 and 24, C. Centre, Salim Housing Project, Shah Faisal Colony, and the appellants are tenants in respect thereof at the monthly rent of Rs.250 each. The respondent filed eviction application bearing No.112 of 1986 and 114 of 1986 against the appellants on the ground of default in payment of rent for the period commencing from 1st October, 1985 and 1st August, 1985 respectively upto the date of the filing of eviction applications. The appellants resisted the eviction applications and also filed written statement. During the pendency, of the eviction application the respondent filed applications under section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance claiming rent from 1-10-1985 to May 1986 and 1-8-1985 to May 1986 respectively amounting to Rs.2,000 and Rs.2,500 respectively. The appellants filed objections thereto. The Rent Controller after taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties directed that in Rent Case No. 112 of 1986 the amount of Rs.1,750 was outstanding against the appellant as arrears of rent for the period of 7 months from 1st December, 1985 to 30th June 1986 and he directed that the aforesaid amount be deposited in Court within 15 days from the date of the order. The Rent Controller also directed in Rent Case No. 114 of 1986 that an amount of Rs.2, 750 was outstanding against the appellant as arrears of rent from 1-8-1985 to 30-6-1986 and he directed that the aforesaid amount will be deposited in Court within 15 days from the date of the order. He also directed the appellants to deposit future monthly rent in Court regularly on or before 10th of every calendar month. The respondent filed applications under section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance stating therein that the appellants did not comply with the tentative rent order dated 28-7-1986. The appellants filed objection thereto and stated that the appellants are residents of District Khairpur and on 2-7-1986, dacoits attacked village Wad Pagia, Taluka Gambat in which two persons were killed and appellants younger brothers were kidnapped.

The learned Controller after taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties allowed the applications under section 16(2) of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance vide his order dated 30-9-1986. The appellants being aggrieved against the orders dated 30-9-1986 have preferred separate first rent appeals on the grounds mentioned in the memo. of appeals.

By order dated 24-11-1986, pre-admission notice was issued to the respondent. In response to the pre-admission notice Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed Sheikh filed his memo. of appearance.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned orders and have gone through the R & Ps of the rent cases.

It is an admitted position that tentative rent orders in both the rent cases were passed on 20-7-1986. It is also an admitted position that the appellants did not comply with the tentative rent orders. The only plea the appellants took is that on 2-7-1986 the dacoity was committed in village Wad Pugiya in which two villagers were killed and their brothers were kidnapped and they were not aware of the passing of the tentative rent orders. The learned Controller did not believe this plea. In rent case Muhammad Yousuf is the tenant and in Rent Case No.112 of 1986 Mir Hazar Khan is the tenant. In rent case Muhammad Yousuf filed objections to application under section 16 (1) and filed his own affidavit in support of the application and described himself as an attorney. The learned Controller pointed that Muhammad Yusouf himself appeared in the case till 28-8-1986 when Mir Hazar Khan appeared in the case. The plea for condoning this delay was not accepted by the Controller. I think that the Controller rightly held that no ground was made out. The other plea was that they were not aware of the tentative rent orders. It is the duty of the tenant to appraise himself about the order and the progress of the case. This was not done by them. There is no cogent evidence on record that they left on after 2-7-1986 and returned on 26-8-1986. They did not bring any documentary evidence that there was a dacoity took place in their village and their brothers were kidnapped. In these circumstances it seems that the learned Rent Controller rightly allowed the applications under section 16(2) and struck off their defence.

For aforesaid reasons the appeals are dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. However, the appellants are allowed to vacate Shops Nos. 8 and 24 on or before 30-4-1987. The above are the reasons of the short order, dated 18-1-1987.

H.B.T./M-44/K Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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