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.797 of 1986, decided on 9th April, 1987.
---S.16(1)(2)--Non-compliance of tentative rent order--Striking off defence--Tenants not only defaulted in making deposit of arrears of rent before stipulated date, but also failed to deposit future monthly rent in accordance with tentative rent order--Disobedience of tentative rent order having been committed by tenants, their defence, held, was liable to be struck off.
Akhter Hussain for Appellant.
Ameer Ahmad for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 9th April, 1987.
This appeal is directed against the order of II Rent Controller Karachi South dated 24-9-1986 whereby he refused to strike off the defence of the Respondents under section 16(2) of Sind Rented premises Ordinance, 1979.
2. The appellant is a landlord of two disputed flats. He filed Rent Case No.2051/85 for the ejectment of the Respondents who were his tenants in the said flats. The respondents admitted relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. According to the appellant the rate of rent was Rs.90 per flat that is Rs.180 per month and the default was with effect from 1-6-1985. While according to the respondents the rate of rent was Rs.50 per flat that is Rs.100 and the default was from 1-8-1985. An application under section 16(1) of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was moved by the appellant on 21-1-1986. In consequence thereof the following order was passed by the learned Rent Controller on 16-4-1986:---
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the objection filed by the counsel of the opponents. According to opponent the rate of rent is Rs.50 per month for each flat and according to the applicant the rate of rent is Rs.90'p.m. for each flat. The opponent is depositing rent in Misc. R.C. No.1887/85 since August, 1985 and he has deposited the rent upto date. I, therefore, tentatively fix the rent at Rs.50 p.m. for each flat and order the rent from 1st of August 85 to be adjusted towards arrears of rent in this case. I, further direct that the future rent be deposited in this court on or before 10th of every succeeding calendar month till final decision of this rent case."
3. From this order it is quite clear that the respondent was directed to deposit rent at the rate of Rs.50 per flat i.e. Rs.100 per month as admitted by the respondents themselves. Similarly the arrears of rent were to be deposited from 1-8-1985 and that was also according to the admission of the respondents. It was further directed that the rent deposited in Misc. Rent case No.1887/85 was to be adjusted and difference of arrears of rent from August 1985, were to be deposited on or before 10th of May 1986.
4. The report of the Nazir would show that before passing of this order dated 9-4-1986 an amount of 85.600 was deposited. The arrears of rent from August 1985 upto the date of passing, of the order would have been Rs.800. As such there was an arrear of Rs.200 on the date of passing of the order which was to be deposited on or before 10-5-1986. Apart from that rent of April, 1986 was also to be deposited on or before 10-5-1986, which has not been deposited. Rent of May 1986 was to be deposited 6n or -before 10-6-1986 and the same has not been 'deposited. The next deposit has been made on 6-7-1986 which is of Rs.100 only.
5. It would therefore appear -that the respondents have not only defaulted in making deposit of arrears before 10th of May -1986 butt have also committed default in that they did not deposit any rent whatsoever for the months of April and May on or before 10th May and 10th June 1986.
6. It is therefore quite clear in my view that the respondents have committed disobedience-of the order of the Rent Controller passed under section 16(1) of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and were therefore liable to get their defence struck off. I therefore set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller and order that the defence of the respondents be struck off and that the respondents should vacate the premises and hand over its vacant possession to the appellant. I allow six months' time to the respondents to vacate the premises on condition that they shall regularly deposit current rent on or before 10th of every succeeding month.
H.B.T./M-274/K Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer