1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The respondent brought an application under section, 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation On 24-7-1976 the learned Rent Controller passed an order under section 13 (6) of the said Ordinance calling upon the petitioner to deposit the arrears as well as the future rent Rs. 50 p. m. The, arrears of rent were to be deposited on 4-10- 1976 and the future rent was to be deposited before the 15th of every month.
2. On 17-2-1977 the respondent moved an application before the Rent Controller that as the arrear of rent was deposited on 12-10-1976 instead on 4-10-1976 and the rent for the month of September, 1976 was deposited on 15-10-1976 instead of 14-10-1976, the petitioner has defaulted in the payment of rent. The petitioner challenged this applica--tion. He submitted that the arrears of rent were deposited by him on 2-10-1976 i.e. Two days before the date prescribed, but delay in depositing rent for September, 1976 was due to the fact that his wife was ill and, therefore, he could not comply with the said order, in time. The learned Rent Controller, after hearing the parties, struck off the defence of the petitioner, and directed him to vacate the premises within two months of his order.
3. The matter was taken in Misc. C. A. No. 87/1977 before the Additional District Judge, Lahore, who dismissed it on 4-3-1978. The petitioner challenged this order in S. A, O. No. 127/76 and a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by order dated 14-3-1978 dismissed it in limine. The petitioner now seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
4. Ch. Muhammad Hussain the learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the petitioner has defaulted in the payment of rent by one day. Instead of depositing the rent for the month of September, 1976 on 14-10-1976 he deposited it on 15-10-1976. Thus there was a delay of one day in the deposit of rent. The learned counsel has urged that the wife of the appellant was ill and, therefore, he failed to deposit the money in time. According to him there was no wilful default and it should be condoned. He relied on Abdul Majid v. Saadullah (P I. D 1963 Quetta 16).
5. We have full sympathy with the petitioner but the view of this Court in Ansari Bros. v. Holy Trinity Church Trust (PLD 1971 SC 700) is that the Rent Controller has no power to condone the delay under section 13 (6) of the W. P. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. We would, however, grant four months' time to the petitioner to vacate the premises, in dispute.