2003 YLR 466 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

UNIQUE SERVICES, SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN VS OCCUPANT OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963--17 , Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 ----S. 17(8) (9) & 24---eviction of tenant--Tentative rent order, non-compliance of--Application for extension of time, grant of--Effect---Tenant holding over after expiry of lease---Tenant was directed through order, dated 19-6-2001 to deposit arrears within twenty days and future rent on or before 5th January of every year of succeeding year--Tenant did not comply with such order, but made application for extension of time, which was allowed till 25-7-2001---Tenant deposited cheque on 25-7-2001, which was encashed on 27-7-2001---Landlord made two applications under S.17(8) of the Act alleging that tenant had committed default by not complying with order, dated 19-6-2001; and that Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to extend time fixed in order, dated 19-6-2001-Rent Controller accepted applications and struck off defence of tenant ---Validity--Tentative rent order was to be passed on tentative assessment by seeing documents and pleadings of parties and obedience to such orders could not be shelved on any reason--Ejectment application had been filed on the basis of expired tenancy agreement, where under rent was payable in advance on yearly basis---Tenant's contention that since agreement had expired, its terms and conditions were not applicable, was without force---Second order extending time for compliance of first order, dated 19-6-2001 was without lawful authority---Tenant had deposited cheque on last date i. e. 25-7-2001 and was encashed after two days on 27-7-2001---Tenant had committed default in depositing rent in view of dictum of Supreme Court reported as 1995 SCMR 287---Tenant had committed default in depositing future rent under terms of agreement, which he was directed to pay in advance for year 2002 on or before 5th of January, 2002---Tentative rent order, dated 19-6-2001 was in consonance with terms of tenancy agreement, whereunder tenant was required to deposit future rent in advance, which had not been done--Impugned order was legal and did not require interference---High Court dismissed appeal in limine.