Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ANIS-UR-REHMAN VS Respondent: SAJEELA BEGUMHonorable Justice Kamal Mansur AlamBadar Alam,Abdul Wajid Wyne
1997 M L D 2278
1997 M L D 2278
[Karachi]
Before Kamal Mansur Alam, J
ANIS‑UR‑REHMAN‑‑‑Appellant
versus
Mst. SAJEELA BEGUM and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents
First Rent Appeal No.228 of 1995, decided on 4th August, 1996.
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.16‑‑‑Non‑deposit of specified amount by tenant (as per tentative order of Rent Controller) relating to arrears of electricity charges‑‑‑Striking off tenant's defence for such non‑deposit‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Tenant's liability for payment of electricity charges in addition to rent being disputed, Rent Controller could not have directed deposit of arrears of electricity charges of specified amount without there being any basis for that‑‑‑Default in payment of electricity charges, however, was apparent from the fact that electricity in premises in question had been disconnected‑‑‑High Court with consent of parties' counsel directed tenant to deposit tentatively with Rent Controller within specified period, specified reduced amount by way of electricity charges‑‑‑Such amount, however, would not be paid to landlord until his entitlement thereto was established‑‑‑Case was remanded to Rent Controller for disposal of same in accordance with law within specified period.
Asghari Begum v. Baji Dubash 1991 CLC 203 and Muhammad Aslam v. Pakistan Steel and another 1990 CLC 849 ref.
Badar Alam for Appellant. Abdul Wajid Wyne for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 4th August, 1996.
JUDGMENT
This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is directed against the Order dated 13‑3‑1995 passed by the V1Ith Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (East) in Rent Case No.630 of 1992 striking out the defence of the appellant for not having complied with the rent order passed by the Rent Controller requiring the appellant to deposit monthly rent of the premises and arrears of electricity charges. There is no dispute that in so far as monthly rent of the premises in question is concerned that is being regularly deposited by the appellant in the Court of the Rent Controller, and the dispute relates only to the non‑deposit of Rs.8,000 by way of arrears of electricity charges.
The contention of Mr. Badar Alain the learned counsel for the appellant is that no arrears towards electricity charges is payable by the appellant and that the electricity in the disputed premises, according to para. 6 of respondent's application, was disconnected as far back as 24‑1‑1988. He submits that the meter is not installed in the disputed premises and the appellant is not even aware if connection to other shops have also been given from the same meter. The counsel submits that it is inconceivable that had the alleged arrears of electricity charges been due from the appellant the landlord would have kept quite since before 1.988. He submits that even otherwise the Rent Controller could not have directed deposit of arrears of rent for more than three years, as held, in the case of Asghari Regum v. Baji Dubash, 1991 CLC 203 and that of Muhammad Aslam v. Pakistan Steel and another, 1990 CLC 849.
Mr. Abdul Wajid Wyne, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the arrears of RS.8,000 directed to be deposited by the Rent Controller pertained to three years' period from 31‑12‑1990 to 10‑11‑1993 as is mentioned in Rent Controller's order dated 18‑12‑1993. In that order the direction for deposit of Rs.8,000 as arrears'of electricity charges, from 31‑12‑1990 to 10‑11‑1993, is supposedly based on an undated 'payment‑slip' issued by the K.E.S.C. and produced before the Controller by the respondents' counsel. This payment slip is available at page 51 of the R & P and unambiguously shows that the arrears of Rs.8,918 mentioned therein pertain to the period from 24‑1‑1988 to 10‑11‑1993 and not from 31‑12‑1990 to 10‑11‑1993 as observed by the Rent Controller. As such, it cannot be said that the alleged arrears of electricity charges was in respect of past three years only.
Apart from the controversy with regard to the period and amount of the arrears of electricity charges, the appellant's counsel also disputes appellant's liability for payment of electricity charges in addition to the rent Accordingly, it would seem that it was not proper for tire Rent Controller to have directed the deposit of arrears of electricity charges of Rs.8,000 without there being any basis for that. At the same time default in payment of electricity charges is apparent from the fact that electricity in the shop in dispute has been disconnected. In these circumstances and with the agreement of the counsel for the parties, it is directed that the appellant will tentatively deposit with the Rent Controller, within four weeks, the sum of Rs.3,000 by way of arrears of electricity charges. This amount, however, will not be paid to the respondent until his entitlement thereto is established in the case.
With the above direction I allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 13‑3‑1995 and remand the case to the Rent Controller who would allow the parties opportunity to adduce evidence and would dispose of the case within a period of six months.
A.A./A‑84/K ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.