MUHAMMAD ABDUL ALEEM Versus WAJAHAT ALI

ORDER

1. The appellant is the owner and landlord of a residential Flat No. 46‑A of the Multi‑Storeyed building known as "Yousuf Plaza" situated in Federal 'B' Area, Karachi and the respondent is tenant thereof at a monthly rent of Rs.300. The appellant filed eviction application No. 4872 of 1978 on the ground of default in payment of rent from February, 1978 ownard and also on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The respondent filed the written statement and resisted the eviction application.

2. That during the pendency of the eviction application the appellant filed an application under section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called as the said Ordinance). The learned Rent Controller by his order, dated 13‑4‑1980 directed the respondent to deposit future monthly rent at the same rate of Rs.300 per month commencing from April, 1980 on or before 10th of each succeeding month i.e. the rent of April, 1980 should be deposited on or before 10th and so on. The appellant filed an application, dated 19‑7‑1983 under section 16(2) of the Ordinance against the respondent with a prayer to strike off the defence of the respondent on the ground that he caused late in depositing the rent. He deposited rent not on the due date but subsequent to the due dates. It seems that the respondent did not file any objection but appeared in person and stated that he paid the rent to his Advocate Mr. Jajja who had failed to deposit the same into Court within time because the respondent was out of Pakistan on a study tour in Thailand.

3. The learned Rent Controller after taking into consideration the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the application, vide his order, dated 8th April, 1985. The appellant being aggrieved against the order, dated 8‑4‑1985 of IXth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller has preferred this First Rent Appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo. of appeal.

4. Mr. Dastagir Ghazi, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand Mr. A. Razique, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the order is in accordance with law.

6. It is pertinent to note that the learned Rent Controller, vide his order, dated 13‑4‑1980 directed the respondent to deposit the future rent on or before 10th of each succeeding month. It seems that the respondent did not deposit the rent on the due dates but deposit the rent of September, 1983 on or before 10th of October, 1983. The explanation of the respondent is that he paid the rent to his counsel for depositing the same on due dates. The same was not deposited on the due dates. During the course of the arguments the learned counsel for the parties submitted a joint statement that the order', dated 8‑4‑1985 be set aside and the case be remanded to the concerned Rent Controller having jurisdiction of Jauharabad Police Station, District West Karachi to decide the main eviction application alongwith application under section 16(2) of the said Ordinance. The request is just. In the interest of justice I set aside this order and remand the case to the concerned Rent Controller who has jurisdiction of Jauharabad Police Station, District West Karachi to decide the application under section 16(2) of the said Ordinance as well as the main eviction application on or before 31st January, 1986 in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Rent Controller on 12th October, 1985. The respondent is allowed to file objections, if any, on 12‑10‑1985

7. However, there will be no order as to costs.

8. H . B. T . Order accordingly.