2001 PLP 647 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 13(6)‑‑‑Ejectment proceedings‑‑‑Defence, striking off‑‑‑Time‑barred arrears of rent‑‑‑Failure to file appeal within time against order passed under S.13(6) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959‑‑‑Rent Controller struck off the defence of the tenant for non‑compliance of the tentative rent order‑‑‑Appeal against the order was dismissed by the Appellate Court as being time‑barred‑‑‑Contention of the tenant was that since the order was regarding the time‑barred arrears of rent, therefore, the ,order of the Rent Controller was void and limitation did not run against the void order‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Parties were bound to file appeals within limitation against the void orders after the same had come to their knowledge‑‑‑Where tenant was aware of the orders of the Rent Controller and no appeal was filed within time, appeal was rightly dismissed by the Appellate Court. Muhammad Raz Khan v. Government of N.‑W.F.P. PLD 1997 SC 397 rel. Ch. Shaukat Ali Saqib for Appellant. Muhammad Amjad Butt for Respondent No.

1. 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. Q.M.H./M.A.K./H‑23/L Appeal dismissed.