IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
BEFORE:
Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui
C.P. No. S-1387 of 2016
Muhammad Aslam Shaikh & another
Versus
Mst. Ambreen Sadiq & others
|
Date of Hearing: |
09.05.2018 |
|
Petitioners: |
Through Mr. Zahid Hussain Advocate |
|
Respondents No.1 & 2: |
Through Mr. Nadeem A. Farooqui Advocate. |
Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J.- This petition in respect of a rented premises was filed against the concurrent findings of two Courts below. Rent Case No.620 of 2014 was filed by the respondents No.1 and 2, which was contested by the petitioners. During its pendency an application under section 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was filed by the respondents which was disposed of vide order dated 15.09.2015 directing the petitioners to deposit arrears of rent w.e.f. July 2007 to December, 2014. The petitioners failed to make compliance of the order whereafter an application under section 16(2) was filed which was disposed of vide order dated 16.02.2016. The Rent Controller was of the view that the deposit of rent in MRC No.323 of 2015, despite clear directions in terms of order passed under section 16(1) is a deliberate attempt to avoid the direction of Rent Controller passed under section 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on 15.09.2015.
I have heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.
The application under section 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was never contested by filing any counter-affidavit. The written statement was also silent as far as deposit of subject rent in MRC is concerned. No document was attached with the written statement, drafted in Urdu by the petitioner. Hence all these documents that petitioners relied on now are extraneous material for the purpose of order under section 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Petitioners could have taken defence, which they have taken now, at the time of final arguments, provided they would have complied with the tentative rent order, which they have not. Hence, the order passed under section 16(1) on the basis of record available before the Rent Controller was prima facie lawful.
All that is required to be seen by this Court is whether the tentative rent order was passed in accordance with law and on the basis of material available on record. No exaggerated amount of rent was considered by Rent Controller. In the absence of defence and receipts upto December 2014, the direction to deposit rent from January 2015 at the rate of Rs.20,000/- was justified. Off course the petitioner could have deposed in evidence that the amount has already been paid once he had complied it. The impugned orders cannot be reversed on the basis of extraneous material hence petition is devoid of force and is accordingly dismissed.
Dated: Judge