Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Section: 16(2) , 21

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVH of 1979)--- ----Ss. 16(2) & 21---Striking off of tenants defence---Rent Controller had struck off defence of tenant on account of wilful default in deposit of arrears of rent--Effect---Tenancy was admitted under father of the landlady but was denied under the landlady---Tentative rent order was passed by Rent Controller for the deposit of arrears of rent but instead, of depositing the rent in the case the tenant had been depositing rent in some other case and, thus, violated the orders of the Rent Controller---Tenant did not file any objection to the application under S.16(2) of the Ordinance---Conduct of tenant in not complying with directions was fulfil and deliberate and rendered him liable to be ejected---Order of striking off defence of tenant did not suffer from any illegality and was just and proper-- Order of Rent Controller was maintained. PLD 1991 SC 711; 1991 SCMR 986; 1987 SCMR 1013 and 1988 SCMR 970 distinguished. . 1991 CLC 1134; 1994 SCMR 159; 1995 SCMR 204 and 1986 SCMR 1714 ref. Ismail Padhiar for Appellant. M. Qaisar Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th November, 1998 JUDGMENT By this appeal the appellant has challenged order, dated 15-2-1996 of the learned 1st Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (Central), whereby his defence was struck off and he was .directed to vacate the premises and hand over its vacant possession to the respondent within 60 days. The relevant facts concerning to the filing of this appeal are that the respondent No. I Mst. Abida Begum had filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance") seeking the eviction of the respondent from Shop No.l, Plot No.H-15/1, Nazimabad, Karachi. She had pleaded therein that she became the owner of the said shop by way of a gift deed confirmed in writing by a declaration executed on 15-8-1994. The said shop was being used for commercial purposes and was already on rent at the monthly rate of Rs.250 with the appellant which was being paid by him regularly with the outgoing owner.   The respondent's case further was that she intimated…