Respondent No.1 filed an ejectment petition against the appellant, in which an order under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, was passed by the learned Rent Controller, requiring the appellant to deposit the arrears as also the future rent. As the appellant, failed to comply with the order, therefore, his defence was struck off by the learned Rent Controller, vide order, dated 7-3- 2000. Appellant, filed an appeal, which has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 20- 7-2000, on merits as well as for delay in filing the appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant states, that as the order under section 13(6) directing the appellant to deposit time-barred arrears of rent, therefore, the order was void, and does not entail the consequences of violating the order resulting into the striking off the appellant's defence.
3. As far as the question of dismissal of appeal being time-barred, it is submitted that the application under section 5 -of the Limitation Act was filed alongwith the appeal, which disclosed a sufficient cause for not moving the Court earlier. Even otherwise, the order of the Rent Controller under section 13(6), was void ab initio, therefore, against such order, no limitation, can pressed into service.
4. I am afraid that both the contentions have no force. From the perusal of the application under section 5, it is not established if the appellant had made out a sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Moreover, the provisions of section 5 were not attracted to the petitions filed under the Rent Restriction Ordinance. For the other argument, that the order under section 13(6) was void, therefore, no question of limitation was involved, suffice it to say, that the parties are bound to file appeals within limitation against the void orders after those had come to their knowledge. The appellant was well-aware of the order of the learned Rent Controller, thus, should have filed the appeal, within time. Reference in this behalf can be made to Muhammad Raz Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. PLD 1997 SC 397.
5. In the light of above, this appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed. However, the appellant is granted two months' time to vacate the premises in question.