ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

CP No.S-1388 of 2019

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date                               Order with signature(s) of Judge(s)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For hearing of Case (Priority)

 

1.      For hearing of CMA No.1455 of 2021

2.      For orders on office objections

3.      For hearing of CMA No.6492 of 2019

4.      For hearing of main case

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

01.04.2021

 

Mr. Arif Khan, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Muhammad Akram Khan, Advocate for the Respondent No.1

-o-o-o-

 

I have heard the learned counsel and perused the available record.

Eviction order was passed u/s 16(2) of SRPO 1979. In the eviction application at page 55 the respondent vide para 4 himself pleaded that rate of rent in terms of agreement was Rs.1400/- per month, however, contents of the main eviction application does not demonstrate as to how this rate was lawfully enhanced to Rs.4000/- per month as stated in para 10 of the same. Thus the respondent/applicant filed an application under Section 16(1) SRPO, 1979 claiming rent @Rs.4000/- per month. After hearing counsel, rent controller directed the petitioner/tenant to deposit the rent at such rate. There was no occasion for the petitioner to deposit the rent even @Rs.1400/- per month because there was no such order rather directions were to deposit the rent @Rs.4000/- thus he was prevented to deposit the rent @Rs.1400/- as well. The rent controller should have perused the pleadings of the parties and should have taken into consideration that the rent is not supposed to be enhanced at the desire and wish of the landlord. It appears that the rent controller while passing order has not perused the pleadings of the parties, such as, eviction application. It should either be lawful enhancement under SRPO 1979 or bilateral agreement. Thus direction of rent controller for deposit of rent @Rs.4000/- was not lawful and consequently, defence of the petitioner was wrongly struck off.

 

 

I therefore, set aside the order passed on the application u/s 16(1) dated 26.11.2018 passed by 3rd Rent Controller, Karachi Central  followed by order on application u/s 16(2) SRPO, 1979 dated 25.3.2019, and so also order dated 19.11.2019 passed in FRA No.62/19 by ADJ VI, Karachi Central (MCAC), however, with direction to the petitioner to deposit arrear of rent from the date as claimed in the application u/s 16(1) SRPO, 1979 but @Rs.1400/- per month in two weeks` time.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms alongwith pending applications.

 

                                                                                                J U D G E

Mush/ps