Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: TARIQ JAVED VS Respondent: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAT
1988 C L C 1940
1988 C L C 1940
[Lahore]
Before Afrasiab Khan, J
TARIQ JAVED and 2 others‑‑Petitioners
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAT and others‑‑Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1135 of 1988, decided on 3rd April, 1988.
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss. 2(c), 13 & 15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑ Ejectment proceedings‑‑Contention of petitioner that unless preliminary question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant was decided by Rent Controller, Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to proceed further admitted by respondent‑‑Suggestion of respondent that some time be fixed within which Rent Controller might finally decide the case accepted by petitioner‑‑Impugned order accordingly set aside being without lawful authority and of no legal consequence and Rent Controller directed to decide eviction application on merits within seven days' time.
Abdul Waheed Butt for Petitioners. Mian Saqib Nisar for Respondent No.3.
ORDER
The petitioners have moved this constitutional petition praying therein that the order, dated 17‑2‑1988 passed by .the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, and the order, dated 25‑4‑1987 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Kharian may be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.
2. The case in brief is that on 25‑4‑1987 learned Rent Controller passed an order saying that the petitioner shall deposit the rent of the property in question at the rate of Rs.300 p.m. in Court and that no party shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount till the final decision of the case. This order by the learned Rent Controller was assailed by the present petitioner by filing an appeal, which was heard and dismissed by learned Additional District Judge on 17‑2‑1988. The learned appellate Court held that the appeal under section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance is not competent against an interlocutory order. He observed that the appeal was not main tainable.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that unless preliminary question, whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is decided by the learned A Rent Controller, he has no jurisdiction to proceed further. He states that the impugned order, dated 25‑4‑1987 on the face of it does not decide the material question regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent has candidly admitted this proposition and he has stated that some time may be fixed in the case, within which the Rent Controller may be directed to finally decide the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has readily accepted this suggestion on the part of the learned counsel for the respondent. Accordingly because of the agreement between the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order, dated 25‑4‑1987 as well as the appellate order, dated 17‑2‑1988 are set aside being without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. The petition succeeds and is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
A direction is issued to the learned Rent Controller to decide the eviction petition on merits after hearing both the parties within seven days' time without fail and compliance report shall be submitted to this Court through the Registrar.
S.Q./T‑36/L Petition allowed.