Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Revision No. 81 of 1965, decided on 12th January 1966.
Ss. 2(b) & 13 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 141 Rent Controller‑Not a Court much less Court of civil jurisdiction within meaning of S. 141, C. P. C.
Khadim Mohy‑ud‑Din v. Ch. Rehmat Ali Nagra P L D 1965 S C 459 ref.
Syed Nafiz Ahmad Zaidi v. S. M. Hussain P L D 1964 Lah. 536 considered.
Ss. 2(b) & 13 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 Revision‑Creature of statute‑Order of Rent Controller‑Not open to revision under S. 115, C. P. C.
Khan Bahadur Khan for Petitioner.
Mian Muhammad Yunis Shah for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th January 1966.
This order would govern Civil Revisions Nos. 81 and 82 of 1965, as they raise a common legal question in the proceedings between the same parties initiated on two separate applications under Rent Restriction Ordinance No. VI of 1959. Learned counsel for the respondents has taken a preliminary objection that the order of the Rent Controller refusing to implead the petitioner in the two separate proceedings under the Ordinance was not revisable under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. The decision of the question turns on the question, whether the Rent Controller is a "Court" within the meaning of section 115, C. P. Code. This point stands concluded by the recent decision of the Supreme Court Khadim Mohy‑ud‑Din v. Ch. Rehmat Ali Nagra (P L D 1965 S C 459), Fazle‑Akbar, J., speaking for the Supreme Court after examining the material provisions of the Ordinance, at page 464, summed up the discussion thus:
"In these circumstances it will be difficult to hold that the Controller while performing his functions under this Ordinance acts as a Court. At the most it may be said that he acts in a quasi judicial capacity.
3. Mr. Khan Bahadur Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, tried to press into service the provisions of section 141, C. P. Code, in regard to the right of revision. In support of the argument, the decision in Syed Nafiz Ahmad Zaidi v. S. M. Hussain (P L D 1964 Lah.536), was invoked, in which it was held that "by virtue 1966 of section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the procedure prescribed in that Code in regard to suits applies, so far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings before a Rent Controller."
4. Since the Rent Controller is not a Court, muchless a Civil Court, within the meaning of section 141, C. P. Code, the question of applying the procedure provided in the Civil" Procedure Code would simply not arise, unless the substantive provision in regard to revision is expressly provided within the four corners of the Ordinance itself. Revision is a creature of the statute and since Ordinance No. VI of 1959, does not specifically provide remedy by way of revision, the orders passed by the Rent Controller are not revisable.
5. I, accordingly, accept the preliminary objection and dismiss the revision petitions, being incompetent. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
K.B.A Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer