Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
First Rent Appeal No. 364 of 1985, decided on 7th September, 1986.
---Ss.15 & 16(1)(2)--Ejectment proceedings--Non-compliance of tentative rent order--Effect--Where tenant failed to comply with directions contained in tentative rent order, without giving any explanation for such non-compliance, tenant's defence, held, was liable to be struck off.
S. Zainul Haq for Appellant.
Qurban Ali N. Pishori for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 2nd September, 1986.
This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order dated 24-1-1985 passed by the XIV Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby the defence of the appellant stood struck off and he was directed to vacate the premises in question forthwith.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent is the landlord and owner of property at Kodia Compound, Plot No. RS 2/6, Ramswami Qurters, Nishtar Road, Karachi and the appellant is tenant in respect of room No. 44 at the monthly rental of Rs. 25. The respondent had filed eviction application 2418/83 against the appellant on the ground of default and subletting. The respondent resisted the eviction application. The respondent filed application under section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 during the pendency of the eviction application. The appellant filed objections. The learned Rent Controller passed tentative rent order on 20-5-1984 whereby he directed the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent for the period commencing from January 1982 to April 1984 on or before 10 June, 1984 and to deposit future rent before 10th of succeeding month.
The respondent filed an application under section 16(2) of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance stating therein that the defence of the appellant be struck off as the appellant did not deposit rent as per tentative order dated 20-5-1984. The appellant filed objections stating therein that the application did not disclose any details of the default.
The learned Controller after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties allowed the application vide his order dated 24-1-1985.
The appellant being aggrieved against the order dated 24-1-1985 of the XIV Rent Controller, Karachi, has preferred the First Rent Appeal on the grounds disclosed in the memo of Appeal.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the R&P and the impugned order.
It is an admitted position that the appellant did not deposit the arrears of rent as well as the rent for succeeding months.
It is now well settled that the tenant's defence is liable to be struck off if he fails to comply with the direction contained in the tentative rent order for which she had given no explanation. Since there was non-compliance of the tentative rent order, the order of the striking off defence seems to be in consonance with law.
I, therefore, dismissed the above appeal with no order as to costs by a short order dated 2-9-1986 and the above are the reasons for the same. I would allow six months period commencing from 2-9-1986 to vacate the premises. Further, in case the appellant fails to hand-over the vacant possession on the expiry of the above period of six months, the Controller shall issue a writ of possession without further notice to the appellant.
H.B.T./R-11/K Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer