Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 588 of 1972, decided on 1st October 1973.

(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, made on the 2nd of October 1972, in S. A. O. No. 314 of 1968).

‑‑ Practice‑Document not produced before Courts below‑Not allowed to be brought on record of Supreme Court.

--‑‑Art. 186(3)‑Question whether tribunal had jurisdiction to proceed in matter or not still pending before High Court‑Not allowed to be raised in proceedings under Art. 186(3), such proceed ings being confined to question whether tribunal justified in striking off petitioner's defence.

Raja Said Akbar Khan, Senior Advocate instructed by M. Z. Khalil, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Khalilur Rahman Khan, Advocate instructed by Rana Maqbul Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 11.

Nemo for Respondent No. 12.

Date of hearing : 1st October 1973.

This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 2‑10‑1972, whereby a second appeal filed by the present petitioners against an order of ejectment made by the Rent Controller, and upheld by the appellate authority, was dismissed with costs.

The dispute concerns a plot of urban land measuring three kanals and seven marlas, situate in Multan district. The respondents, as owners of tile land, sued for ejectment of the petitioners on the ground of default in the payment of rent. On the petitioners' denial of the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue on this point, and after deciding the same in favour of the respondents he ordered the appellants on the 27th of July 1966 to deposit arrears of rent as well as future rent by specified dates. The petitioners preferred an appeal against this order which was, however, rejected by the appellate authority, and the petitioners were directed to deposit the arrears of rent before the 15th of February 1967, and also to pay future monthly rent before the 15th of each calendar month. The petitioners did not comply with this order, and instead preferred a second appeal in the High Court, and obtained an order on the 16^th of February 1967 staying proceedings before the Rent Controller. However, on that very date, in ignorance of the High Court's order, the learned Rent Controller struck off the defence of the petitioners under section 13 (6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance for their failure to deposit the arrears of rent by the specified date and ordered their ejectment from the land in dispute. In these circumstances, the second appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 23‑10‑1967 as having become infructuous. An appeal under the Letters Patent is still pending in the High Court against this order.

The petitioners commenced a second round of litigation by filing an appeal against the order of ejectment made by the Rent Controller on 16‑2‑1967, but the same was dismissed by the appellate authority. Their second appeal has also been dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the petitioners had clearly defaulted in depositing the arrears of rent before the 15th of February 1967, and, therefore, the Rent Controller had no option but to strike off their defence and order their ejectment. The learned Judge in the High Court has repelled the petitioners' contention that the Rent Controller could not proceed in the matter in view of the interim order made by the High Court on 16‑2‑1967 in the previous second appeal filed by the petitioners.

It is submitted by Raja Said Akbar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that this case involves an important question regarding the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, as in previous litigation between the parties it had been held that the tenancy was not governed by the West

Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, but was in the nature of an agricultural lease. In support of this submission, the Darned counsel wanted to draw our attention to a copy of a judgment of a civil Court, but we have not allowed this document to be brought on record as it was not produced before the Courts below. The learned counsel has contended, in the second place, that once the High Court had stayed proceedings on 16‑2‑1967, the Rent Controller did not have power to proceed in the matter and for this reason also his order is invalid.

We see no substance in these submissions. The question whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to proceed in the matter or not still forms the subject‑matter of the Letters Patent appeal pending in the High Court, and it cannot, therefore, be permitted to be agitated in the present proceedings, which are confined solely to the question whether the learned Rent Controller was justified to strike off the petitioners' defence and order their ejectment on the ground of their failure to deposit the arrears of rent by the specified date. The learned Judge in the High Court has rightly observed that default being proved and admitted, the learned Rent Controller had no choice in the matter in view of the mandatory terms employed by the Legislature in subsection (6) of section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. As there was nothing before the High Court to show that the interim stay order in the previous second appeal of the petitioners had been made by the High Court before the Rent Controller passed his order, the learned Judge was clearly right in not giving effect to this contention as well.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.