2019 YLR 2846 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

ZAHID HUSSAIN VS SALEEM YOUSUF Ss.16, 15 & 10---eviction of tenant---Non-compliance of tentative rent order---Default in payment of future monthly rent---Scope---Rent Controller, on the application of petitioner/landlord, passed tentative rent order for payment of arrears of rent as well for next (coming ) three months and subsequently struck off defence of tenant (respondent ) for non-compliance of deposit of three months in advance---Appellate Court set aside the order passed by Rent Controller and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide the same on merit---Petitioner/ landlord contended that order to deposit the future rent in advance could not be condoned---Respondent/tenant contended that tentative rent order did not specify whether future rent was required to be deposited in advance or after becoming due on expiry of the month---Validity---Points for consideration which remained to be resolved were, whether the tentative rent order were properly interpreted/ understood by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court, keeping in view the language of Ss.10, 15(2) & 16(1)(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and whether the date on which the future monthly rent deposited were in time or not---Said tentative rent order reflected that directions were given to the tenant/respondent for payment of future monthly rent on or before the 10th of each calendar month next following, when in terms of S. 10 or 15(2) the rent for the previous month would become due---Provision of S. 16(1) of the Ordinance did not permit the Rent Controller to pass order for advance payment of rent for current months ---If the Rent Controller had taken reasonable care at the time of passing the orders under S.16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, he could have clarified said legal position in his orders regarding payment of future/ current monthly rent by incorporating the words "next month'' "coming month" "subsequent month" or "succeeding month", while forming such view---Rent Controller, in the present case, proceeded a misinterpretation of the rent order under misconception of law that the rent for alleged three months of default was payable in advance by the 10th of each calendar month, though in accordance with law to avoid commission of default, rent for the each said month was payable by the 10th of next (succeeding) month, when it would have become due---In the present case, as per report of Nazir/C.O.C the respondent had deposited the future rent for disputed period, which was well within time in view of the scale of law---By no stretch of imagination, the respondent could be held defaulter in the compliance of tentative rent order as alleged by the appellant/petitioner---No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Court, constitutional petitions were dismissed accordingly.