This second appeal is directed against an order of ejectment passed by a Rent Controller after striking of the defence of the appellants, Mr. A. Nasim Qureshi and two others. Their appeal before the appellate authority (Additional District Judge) has also failed.
2. The defence of the appellants was struck of by the learned Rent Controller for the reason that they had not deposited rent for the months of April and October, 1974, within the time allowed by him. According to the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, under subsection (6) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, rent for the month of April, 1974 was required to be deposited before 15th May, 1974 and rent for October, 1974 had to be deposited before 15th November, 1974 but rent for the said two months was deposited after the dates given above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that rent for April, 1974 was not deposited in time due to the fact that the appellant's counsel had mis-understood the order relating to deposit of the said rent and that the delay had occurred in the deposit of rent of October, 1974 due to the reason that one of the appellants, namely, Mr. A. Nasim Qureshi had fallen ill. Similar plea was raised before the learned Rent Controller but in vain.
4. As for the misunderstanding attributed to the appellants' counsel, it was observed by the learned Rent Controller that his order was too clear, to be misinterpreted. While dealing with the alleged illness of one of the appellants it was pointed out by him that if one of the appellants was indisposed, the others could make the deposit of rent and struck of the defence of the appellants.
5. I agree with the learned Rent Controller that his order, dated the 22nd April, 1979, for the deposit of rent did not leave any room for any misunderstanding inasmuch as it was clearly directed by him that the future rent would include rent for the month of April, 1974 and would be deposited before the 15th day of the next month. The learned Rent Controller was, therefore, right in repelling the appellant's contention that they had not deposited rent, for the said month before the stipulated date due to the mistaken advice of their counsel.
6. As regards the rent for October 1974, it ,was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellants other than Mr. A. Nasim Qureshi, who was ill, were not in Lahore, and, therefore, they could not make timely deposit of the said rent. According to the learned counsel, one of them was outside the country and the other was in Kohat. I have gone through the application made by the appellants for condonation of delay, in the deposit of rent of October 1974, but the aforesaid explanation is not mentioned therein. The appellants other than Mr. A. Nasim Qureshi did not make any application furnishing the explanation now given before the by the learned counsel. No document, such as passport or travelling ticket, was produced to show that the appellants other than Mr. A. Nasim Qureshi bad left Lahore before rent for October, 1974 had become payable, The explanation furnished by the learned counsel is not only belated but also without substance. It is, therefore, not accepted.
7. There is no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed in limine.