Find a Lawyer

Transfer Application No. 169/0 of 1979, decided on 13th May, 1979.

S. 15-A read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203 Transfer of ejectment proceedings-Section 15-A of Ordinance does not empower High Court to transfer a matter from one Rent Controller to another-Power however, available only to appellate authority-Rent Controller not a Court and as such not subject to supervisory jurisdiction of High Court contained in Art. 203 of Constitution-Recourse to constitutional provision relating to supervi sion of- subordinate Courts, held cannot be bad-[Transfer of civil case].

Mst. Gamart v. Taj Din P t. D 1968 Lab. 987 and Mst. Safia Begum v. Abdul Hamid P L D 1968 Lab. 1358 distinguished. Khadim Hussain v. Ghulam Muhammad P L D 1971 Lab. 529 rel.

Mian Zafar Yasin for Petitioner.

This is an application filed under section 15-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and Article 203 of the Constitution, seeking transfer -f an ejectment proceeding from one Rent Controller to another. The petitioner had earlier moved the District Judge in the matter but his application was dismissed on 5-4-1979.

2. Section 15-A of the Ordinance does not empower the High Court to transfer a matter from one Controller to another. That power is available only, to the Appellate Authority. The High Court has been empowered to withdraw only an appeal pending with an Appellate Authority. Learned counsel, how ever, relying on Mst. Gaman v. Taj Din (P 1, D 1968 Lab. 987) and Mst. Safia Begum v. Abdul Hamid (P L D 1968 Lab. 1358) urged that this Court has power under Article 203 to allow the transfer. By Article 203, the High Court is empowered to "supervise and control all Courts subordinate to it". This power had been invoked in the aforesaid authorities for transfer of suits under the Family Courts Act because at that time section 25-A of the Act did not exist and as such there was no power anywhere available for effecting a transfer. The power was invoked upon the view that the family Court was not a persona designata but was a Court of law within the meaning of then Article 102 of the Constitution. The Controller, however, is not a Court and as such the provision of the Article cannot be invoked. Moreover, section 15-A of the Ordinance spells out the powers at the two levels for ordering transfers. The Legislature, therefore, in the context of the Ordinance, never intended to vest the High Court with the power to transfer a proceeding from on Controller to another. In such a situation, too, recourse to the Constitu tional provision relating to supervision of subordinate Courts cannot be had.

The question of the powers of the High Court had specifically come before a Single Bench in Khadim Hussain v. Ghulam Muhammad (P L D 1971 Lab. 529) and it had been held that the "High Court has no power to direct the transfer of a case pending before a Rent Controller".

3. For these reasons the petition is not competent and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

M. A. K 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.