MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J. -- Respondent No. 1, filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in which the petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant; issue was framed and the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 1.7.1999, came to the conclusion that relationship does exist between the parties and consequently, ordered for eviction of the petitioner.
2. Against the above, the petitioner filed an appeal and the learned Appellate Court on 3.9.1999, passed an order under the provisions of Section 15 (5) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, directing the respondent No. 1, to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,26,000/-.
Admittedly, this order has not been compelled with, the result that on application having been moved by respondent, learned Addl. District Judge, vide order dated 21.1999, has struck off the defence of the petitioner and ordered the eviction.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order dated 3.9.1999 was passed by the learned Duty Judge and thus its non-compliance would not entail sticking off the defence. , Besides, it is stated that as relationship of landlord and tenant has been denied by the petitioner, therefore, until this matter was finally decided in appeal, the petitioner could not be required to deposit the arrears of rent.
4. I am afraid that both the above contentions have no force. The petitioner had never challenged the order dated 3.9.1999 before any higher forum on the basis that the Duty Judge cannot pass such order. Besides, the Duty Judge is a Judge and had authority in law to pass the order under Section 15 (3) and it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have complied with the same.
4. As regards the other question, it may be stated that because the finding of facts has been given by the learned Rent Controller, holding the petitioner a tenant under the respondent, thus after determination of this issue in favour of respondent, the Appellate Court could validly direct the petitioner to make the deposit of the arrears of rent in terms of Section 15 (5) of the Ordinance ibid. This is no illegality committed by the Court in passing the impugned order. No other point has been urged. I do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed in limine.