SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner, a tenant, seeks review of our judgment dated 25-5-1988 whereby leave to appeal was refused to him against the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan dated 13-5-1987 upholding Order of the Rent Controller.
2. The petitioner was proceeded against by the landlord for default in the payment of rent. On 15-8- 1981, the Rent Controller directed him under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance to deposit future rent before the 15th of the following month. There was .a default by the tenant in observing the Order which fact was pointed out by the landlord. The Rent Controller examined it and by an elaborate Order struck off his defence and ordered his ejectment. This Order was upheld by the High Court. Leave to appeal was refused against it.
3. In the review petition the main ground urged is that a substantial amount had been deposited with the landlord as security and whether the petitioner could be considered at all a defaulter, liable to be dealt with under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. In addition justification was made out for the failure to deposit the rent on time.
4. The question as to what security had remained in the hands of the landlord was not at all a relevant consideration for dealing with the default committed under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. Once it was found that a default had been committed, the Rent Controller had no discretion in the matter but had to strike off the defence.
5. As regards the question whether the default had in fact taken place, or not; the Rent Controller as well as the High Court have taken note of the fact that the disability of the petitioner was not established, particularly where he was dealing with servant and agents in the matter of managing the property. He had also failed to himself explain the delay and seek condonation. He instead left it to be pointed out by the respondent/landlord and came out with an explanation and documentation about three months after the default had been committed.
6. In the circumstances, we find no ground for review and the Petition is dismissed.
AA./M-1519/SReview dismissed.