KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The dispute in this case is about a shop along with Godown Store and courtyard of House No. 12 (as described fully in the ejectment application) situated in Ibrahim Street, Dhani Ram Road, Anarkali, Lahore (hereinafter called the shop). The respondents (hereinafter called the landlords) filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959, for eviction of Shuja-ud-Din petitioner (hereinafter called the tenant) from that shop. In the course of the proceedings of that application the learned Rent Controller on 25-5-1974, passed an order directing the tenant/petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent within the date fixed therein and the future rent in accordance with the law on the subject. As the tenant made default in the payment of the rent for the months of June and October, 1976 and April and October, 1977, therefore, the landlords applied on 17-1-1978 that the defence of the tenant should be struck off and the landlords be put in possession of the shop. The tenant filed a written statement/reply in which he took the stand that he had paid all the rent in time. On scrutiny however, it was found that the default in the payment of the above-mentioned four months has taken place, therefore, the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 15-3-1978, struck off the defence of the tenant/petitioner and ordered his eviction.
2. The petitioner/tenant filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge on 15-11-1978. He held that the rent for the month of June, 1976, had been deposited in time and though there was a default in the payment of the rent for the remaining three months above-- the tenant should have been given time to show that he was prevented to deposit the same by a sufficient cause namely kidney trouble which was pleaded before the learned Additional District Judge. After giving this finding he reversed the order of the learned Rent Controller and remanded the case to him for inquiry on the above-mentioned aspect of the matter.
3. The landlords filed an appeal being S. A. O. No. 731/78 which was accepted by the High Court on 28-3-1979. The High Court held that the plea of illness for the first time taken before the learned Additional District Judge appeared to be an afterthought inasmuch as it was not put forward before the learned Rent Controller. In these circumstances the relevant default admittedly being there the High Court set aside the order of the learned Additional District Judge and restored the order of the learned Rent Controller.
4. The tenant/petitioner has come in a petition for special leave to appeal against the last mentioned order of the High Court.
5. Learned counsel has submitted that even though there may have been a default on the part of his client in depositing the rent in time, nevertheless, the learned Rent Controller should have given an opportunity to the tenant to prove his plea of defence namely sickness on account of kidney trouble due to which the delay in the deposit of rent took place. The contention raised has no merit.
We asked the learned counsel whether his client in his reply to the default application dated 17-1- 1978 had taken up the plea of any illness before the learned Rent Controller but his answer was in the negative. He wanted to refer to the certified copy of his grounds of appeal before the learned Additional District Judge but finding that even in those grounds the nature of sickness was left blank, he could not advance his case any further. In these circumstances it is obvious that when no proper plea of any such kind was taken at any appropriate stage, the question of finding fault in the order of the learned Rent Controller did not arise. The order of the High Court thus suffers from no legal or factual error, warranting inter--ference by this Court.
6. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. The tenant is however given four months time to vacate the shop subject to his continuing to pay the rent regularly.