' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.--- This rent appeal is filed against the order, dated 7-6-2005 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantt., whereby the defence of the petitioner tenant was struck off and he was directed to hand over vacant possession of the rented premises namely, a shop, to the respondent No,l. The ground for such order is the default by the appellant to deposit rent under order dated 1-2-2005 for the month of February, 2005 before 5-3-2005. Admittedly the appellant deposited the said rent on 7-3-2005. Learned counsel for the appellant explained that the order dated 1-2-2005 was composite in nature and directed the appellant to make deposits in respect of past dues of rent as well as future rent. The said order was complied in every respect except for the deposit of rent for the month of February, 2005 wherein the appellant committed a delay of one day. Rather than depositing on 5-3-2005 he deposited on 7-3-2005, with the intervening day of 6-3-2005 being a Sunday. Accordingly, he submits that the delay is not wilful and has been occasioned on account of misunderstanding and ought to be condoned in the circumstances of the case.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent has read through section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 to show that its statutory intent is for a deposit of rent under a tentative order is to be made prior to the 5th day of the following month. In the present case he submits that pursuant to the terms of the order dated 1-2-2005 the rent for February, 2005 ought to have been deposited by the appellant at the latest on 4-3-2005. Resultantly the delay in question is of 3 days and not of one day. Insofar as the explanation by the appellant is concerned his reply to the respondent's application under section 17(9) of the Act does not have an affidavit in support thereof. Learned counsel for the appellant has read from the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court given in the case of M.H. Mussadaq v. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal 2004 SCM R 1453 wherein it has been held that the provisions of section 17(9) dealing with the consequences of default in complying with direction given in a tentative order are mandatory. The Rent Controller has no power to condone the delay in the making of a deposit directed by such an order in accordance with section 17(8) (supra). It is contended that the delay of 3 days in the present case cannot be condoned and the default in question has rightly been visited by the impugned order with a direction for vacation of the rent premises. Insofar as, the security amount lying in deposit is concerned, learned counsel has referred to the case of Saeed Ahmed Khan v. Mst. Jamila Khanum 1998 AC 531 and Saeed Ahmed Khan v. Mst. Jamila Khanum 1999 CLC 852 to urge the proposition that the security amount is not to be adjusted against over dues of rent.
3. In the light of the foregoing position on facts as well as law, it is clear that the obligation to deposit rent for the month of February, 2005 ought to have been discharged at the latest by 4-3- 2005, which was not done. The provisions of section 17(9) of the Act are mandatory. Neither the Rent Controller nor this Court has power to condone the delay in question. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and this appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost. Further time is however, granted to the appellant who shall vacate the rented premises in a period of 3 months from the date of this order.