ORDER SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.- This appeal under Section 24 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 is directed against the ejectment order dated 5.5.2005.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the respondent filed an ejectment petition under Section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 against the present appellant on the ground of default and personal need. Said petition was resisted and the allegations levelled therein were controverted. However, the relationship' of landlord and tenant was not denied. Consequently, on 8.2.2Q05 the learned Rent Controller passed on order under Section 17(8) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 directing the appellant to deposit arrears of rent till 20.2.2005 and the future rent by or before the 5th of each succeeding month. Subsequently, the respondent raised an issue that the order for deposit of rent has not been complied with. The Rent Controller after hearing the parties vide order dated 5.5.2005 struck of the defense of the appellant and directed his ejectment.
3. Learned counsel for the parties has been heard.
4. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that an order under Section 17(8) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 was passed requiring the appellant to deposit the rent by or before 20.2.2005. It is also not disputed by the counsel for the appellant that such rent was deposited on 23.2.2005. It appears that on 20.2.2005 was Sunday, however, the rent was not deposited of the next working day that was 21.2.2005, in fact was deposited in 23.2.2005. No explanation for non-deposit of rent has been offered at all before this Court or the Rent Controller, In the circumstances where an order under Section 17(8) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 has been violated and not complied with, the Rent Controller is enjoined by law to strike of the defense of a tenant and passed an order for his ejectment. In this view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the impugned order, which has been passed strictly in accordance with law. Hence this appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed.