Order Sheet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

F.R.A. No.20 of 2025

[ Syed Abdul Latif Shah & another v. Raja Irfan Afzal & others]

Appellants: Through Mr. Laiq Ahmed, Advocate.

Respondents Mr. Farooq Rashid, Advocate.

Date of Hearing & order: 22.08.2025

ARSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN J. The appellant, by means of this First Rent Appeal filed under Section 24 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (the "Act, 1963"), has assailed the order dated 15.04.2023 (the “impugned order”) passed by the learned Additional Controller of Rents, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi in Rent Case No. 23 of 2023, whereby the learned Rent Controller allowed the respondents’ application under Section 17(9) of the Act, 1963. Consequently, the defence of the appellant was struck off on account of his non-compliance with the tentative rent order dated 26.12.2024 and the appellant, or any other person in possession of the tenement, was directed to vacate the demised premises and to hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to the respondents within thirty (30) days.

2. The precise facts of the case are that the appellant is a tenant of the respondents, who are the landlords of Shop No.1, situated on the Ground Floor, Plot No.21-C, Sunset Commercial Street-1, Phase-IV, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi (the “demised premises”). The respondents instituted Rent Case No.23 of 2023 under Section 17 of the Act, 1963, on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal need. By order dated 14.05.2024, the learned Rent Controller directed the appellant to deposit arrears of rent in Court before the next date of hearing. Upon the appellant’s failure to comply with the tentative rent order, the impugned order was passed, which is now under challenge through the instant First Rent Appeal (F.R.A.).

3. At the outset, relevant portion of the tentative rent order dated 26.12.2024 is being reproduced hereunder:-

“5. There is no dispute on the relationship of landlord and tenant between parties. There is admitted position with regard to execution of subsequent tenancy agreement dated 1.12.2014. The applicants have claims rent from October 2022, which amounts to Rs.626,469/- (5x25855+11x27148+11x28506) w.e.f 1.10.2022 to 31.112.2024 (27x months). As per reader’s report, the applicant has withdrawn the rent from M.R.C. No.60/2016 @ Rs.18,3,75/- per month for this period as well, which amounts to Rs.496,125/-. The opponent is therefore tentatively directed to deposit Rs.130,344/- on account of arrears of difference monthly rent and future monthly rent at the rate of Rs.29931/- (further to be increased by 5% after eleven months) per month before 5^th of every month.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller is contrary to law. It is argued that the Rent Controller also failed to duly consider the relevant facts and applicable law, and has erroneously struck off the defence of the appellant without affording him an adequate opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that the impugned order is devoid of reasons and does not qualify as a speaking order in the eyes of law. Hence, the learned counsel prays that the impugned order be set aside.

5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the impugned order is in strict conformity with law. It is submitted that the appellant failed to deposit the arrears of the differential monthly rent, as well as future monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 29,931/-, in compliance with the tentative rent order, which had been passed on the respondents’ application under Section 17(8) of the Act, 1963. Owing to the non-compliance of said order, the appellant’s defence was struck off, as mandated under Section 17(9) of the Act, 1963, and the eviction order was consequently passed. Thus, the learned counsel submits that no illegality or infirmity exists in the impugned order, and prays that the First Rent Appeal be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully with their assistance.

7. Record transpire that learned Rent Controller, vide tentative rent order, directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.130,344/- towards arrears of differential monthly rent, as well as future monthly rent at the rate of Rs.29,931/- per month (subject to an annual increase of 5% after every eleven months), on or before the 5th day of each succeeding month. Upon the appellant’s failure to comply with the said tentative rent order, the learned Rent Controller, in exercise of his powers, struck off the defence of the appellant.

8. It may be observed that Section 17(9) of the Act 1963 contains penal provision for disobedience of order passed under subsection (8), which read as following.

“17(9) If the tenant fails to deposit the amount of rent before the specified date or, as the case may be, before the 5th day of the month, his application if he is a petitioner, shall be dismissed, or his defence, if he is a respondent, shall be struck off, and the landlords shall be put in possession of the building without any further proceedings”

9. The aforesaid provision, by virtue of the use of the word “shall”, is mandatory in nature. Consequently, the tenant was bound to comply with the said order in its true letter and spirit, as non-compliance carries the penal consequence of striking off the defence of the tenant. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller was fully justified, under the law referred to hereinabove, in striking off the defence of the appellant/tenant and passing the eviction order. In M.H. Mussadaq v. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal and another (2004 SCMR 1453), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan authoritatively held that non-compliance with a tentative rent order renders the striking off of the defence of the tenant not only lawful but inevitable, being the consequence expressly provided under the statute.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of Safeer Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Muhammad Khalid Shafi through legal heirs (PLD 2007 SC 504), while dealing with the identical issue has categorically held that where a tenant fails to comply with the tentative rent order of the learned Rent Controller, it becomes obligatory upon the Rent Controller to strike off the defence of the tenant. Once such default is committed, the Rent Controller is left with no discretion or jurisdiction except to strike off the tenant’s defence, subject only to the exceptions provided under law.

The above authoritative pronouncements underscore the principle that compliance with a tentative rent order is mandatory in nature. A tenant’s failure to adhere thereto disentitles him from contesting further proceedings, thereby facilitating the expeditious adjudication of landlord-tenant disputes. The ruling further reinforces the settled law that once default is established, the Rent Controller is bound to enforce the consequences envisaged under the statute, ensuring both certainty and uniformity in judicial practice.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, and in light of the facts and law governing the matter, the impugned orders are found to be well-reasoned, legally sustainable, and free from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the instant First Rent Appeal stands dismissed.

JUDGE

Naveed PA