KARAM ELAHEE CFIAUHAN, J. --The dispute in this case is about a house bearing No. 4-8-1974, situated in Block No. 6, Sargodha. Syed Muhammad Shakir (hereinafter called the landlord) as stated in para. 3 of the present petition on 21-11-1967 filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, VI of 1959 (hereinafter called the-Ordinance) for eviction of Muhammad Siddique (hereinafter called the tenant petitioner) on the ground of non- payment of rent. The tenant/ petitioner denied the tenancy and the relationship of landlord and tenant, but the learned Rent Controller by means of his order dated 24-9-1974, decided that matter in favour of the landlord and held that Muhammad Siddique was tenant under him. Later, on 21-11- 1974, as the rent admittedly had not been paid, therefore, the learned Rent Controller directed eviction of the tenant from the house aforesaid.
2. The tenant petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha on 3-7-1976.
3. The tenant/petitioner then filed a second appeal being S. A. O. No. 569 of 1976, which also met the same fate and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 19-1-1977.
4. The tenant petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
5. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client was a defaulter and had not paid any rent. However, his submission was that the learned Rent Controller was under an impression that he was passing the eviction order under subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance because according to him the tenant/petitioner had failed to make any deposit of rent under the aforesaid provision of law which he specifically quoted in his order. The learned counsel submits that as there was no order or direction for deposit of rent under section 13(6) therefore, reference to that pro--vision of law was unwarranted with the result that if the order of the learned Rent Controller contained any such reference then it suffered from an error patent on the record and was liable to be ignored set aside on this short ground together with the orders of the higher forums which had maintained the same. The contention has no merit. No doubt there was no order under subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance, directing the petitioner to deposit any rent and as such the question of making reference to that provision of law or the question of consequent disobedience of any such order did not arise, but this mistake hardly makes any different to the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the present case because her admittedly the petitioner has throughout been a defaulter without any jusr cause and the Courts below were therefore perfectly right in holding that actually the learned Rent Controller intended to direct eviction of the A petitioner due to the overall default on his part and not any default under subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance. We find nothing wrong o illegal in the orders of the Courts below which are based .On correct factual position of the case. In this respect the petitioner being a chronic default he rightly deserved to be evicted from the house in dispute. The impinge orders in the circumstances do substantial justice to the merits of the case and, there is hardly any point warranting grant of special. Leave to appeal.
6. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. The stay order granted earlier shall stand vacated.