1. ' This appeal arises out of judgment dated 23rd May, 1975, by the IInd Additional District Judge, Karachi whereby, he upheld the order dated 30-3-1974 passed by the XVth Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi and dismissed the appeal.
2. The facts, relevant for the purposes of this appeal, are that the learned Rent Controller passed an order on 4-8-1973 directing the appellant to deposit arrears of rent as well as future monthly rent before the 15th of every succeeding month at the rate of Rs, 140, per month. Admittedly the rent A for the month of October, 1973, which was to be deposited on or before the 14-11-74 was deposited on 15-11-73. An application filed by the respondent for striking off defence was filed by the respondent wherein the plea taken by the appellant was that he was sick during 7th October, and 15th October, 1973. To support his contention he produced a medical certificate to this effect, that he was under treatment by the doctor for burns and fever during that period and thus he could not deposit the rent on the due date. The evidence of sickness produced by the appellant was not taken to be a sufficient ground for late depositing the rent. Both the Courts held that it is not evidenced by the medical certificate that the sickness was so serious which prevented him from moving outside his house. In result, both the Courts below, rejecting the plea, struck off the defence and ordered for eviction of the appellant.
3. ' The learned counsel for the appellant repeated the same contention before me but unfortunately he failed to convince me so as to disregard the finding of the Courts below and interfere into the impugned judgment. Assuming for the sake of argument that the appellant was sick and so he could not deposit rent in time, he could deposit the same through some adult member of his family. It was not at all alleged that he had no other person who could deposit rent on his behalf within the time prescribed by law The respondent invited my attention to the affidavit of one Farooq Karnali Pasha son of the appellant filed in support of stay application in this appeal who has stated in para. 1 of his affidavit that he is the son and parokar of the appellant.
4. ' The respondent, further, relied on a judgment of Supreme Court reported in 1973 SCMR 243 in which the order of the Court below striking off the defence for default of one day only was upheld.
5. ' The learned counsel for the appellant relied on an authority of this Court in case of Muhammad Ishaq v. Abdul Haq (1), but I find that the {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1978 Kar. 898 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' facts of the said case are not similar to the present case. In the case cited above the Court held that the appellant was under a bona fide impression that he could deposit rent on the re-opening of the Court, whereas in the present case there is no question of any bona fide impression involved.
6. It is a case wherein a plea of sickness has been taken by the appellant but not believed so as to warrant the default to be condoned by the Courts below.
7. I, therefore, find no justification to interfere into the impugned judgment. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
8. ' Mr. Ahmadullah requests for for months' time for vacation of the premises. Four months time is accordingly allowed to the appellant for vacating the premises, subject to depositing rent for the said period in Court.