1. ' WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The dispute between the parties is in respect of one portion of property No, F/66-1141/Hyderabed which was leased out to him at a rent of Rs, 60 p. m. This property became evacuee property by order of this Court dated 8-3-1967. The respondent filed an application for the eviction of the petitioners vide his Applicantion No 45 of 1969 in February, 1969 in the Court of the Rent Controller and Civil Judge, Hyderabad on the ground of default since July, 1968 and personal bona fide requirements.
2. This application was resisted and the petitioner denied the relationship! Of landlord and tenant between the parties. This plea was accepted by the Rent Controller and he held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, by order dated 9-12-1971. The respondent challenged this order in Appeal No, 163/71 before the learned III Additional District Judge, Hyderabad which was accepted on 13-1-1973 and the matter was remanded to the Rent Controller by order dated. 13-1-1973. On remand, the learned Rent Controller passed an order for deposit of rent from July 1968 to February 1973 and by further ex parte order dated 4-4-1973 struck off th defence of the petitioner and directed him to vacate the property in dispute.
3. ' The matter was then taken to the High Court in Second Appeal No, 197/73 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court on 11-4-1977. He held that the appeal was barred by 92 days unde section 15(4) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the Order dated 13-1-1973 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, in Rent Appeal No, 163 of 1972 whereby he set aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 9-12-1971 dismissing the eviction application on the ground of absence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and remanded the case for decision on merits. This Order has been challenged in this petition for special leave to appeal.
4. ' In support of the petition Mr. Akhtar Mahmood, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the property has become evacuee property, and therefore, the order passed by the Additional Distt. Judge was void in law and any order which is void in law, can be challenged before the High Court irrespective of the fact whether it is within limitation or. Not.
5. The contention o f the learned counsel has not impressed us. In our opinion, the High Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by time. Besides, the petitioner has failed to deposit the rent as directed by the Rent Controller, and his defence has been struck off. He is not entitled to any relief. The petition is dismissed.