Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑ Art. 199‑Writ against interlocutory order‑Writ petition held, not competent against interlocutory orders passed under S. 13(6) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) [Writ].

Mohammad Hassain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139 arid Rashid Ahmad v. Soofi Mohammad Saleem and others P L D 1976 Lab. 1450 ref. Mohammad Saeed v. Mst. Saratul Fatima and another . P L D 1978 Lab. 1459 ref.

Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Petitioner.

Syed Muhammad Iybal for Respondent No. 1.

Nemo fur Respondent No. 2.

Dates of hearing : 27th and 28th September, 1981.

This order will dispose of W. P. No. 11326 of 1980 and W. P. No. 12169 of 1980 as these are identical matters.

2. The petitioners in these cases are the tenants. In the first case, the petitioner has been ordered to deposit rent at the rate of Rs.240 p. m. for eleven months in exercise of powers under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. In the second case, when the matter for fixation of tentative rent under section 13(6) of the said Ordinance was taken up the petitioner pleaded that the respondent had obtained loan of Rs.1,00,000 adjustable towards the payment of refit of the house which was Rs.4,000 p.m. A receipt was produced for the said loan. The learned Rent Controller was of the view that the signatures of the landlady did no tally with the signatures on the receipt and the matter on this point could only be decided after recording of evidence. Therefore, he tentatively ordered under section 13(6) of the Ordinance that the rent be paid from October, 1979 to November, 1980 before the next date of hearing.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner‑tenants have argued that the order of the learned Rent Controller directing the deposit of the arrears of rent in exercise of powers under section 13(6) of the aforesaid Ordinance is without lawful authority for the reasons that the learned Rent Controller has not taken into account all the material, which showed that the tenants were not liable to be ordered to deposit the arrears of rent. Further) that the order is in violation of section 13(6) of the Ordinance.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the landlords have contended with reference to the pleadings of the parties that in the circumstances of the case, the orders passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance were perfectly justifiable and even if those were wrong, those were not liable to be interfered with in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by this Court. Reliance was placed on Mohammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (P L D 1974 S C 139). More vehemently the learned counsel for the respondents have contended that against an interim interlocutory order passed in exercise of powers under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, no writ is competent and reliance is placed on Rashid Ahmad v. Soofi Mohammad Saleem and others (P L D 1976 Lah.1450) and Mohammad Saeed v. Mst. SaratuJ Fatima and another (P L D 1978 Lah. 1459).

5. In the latter case, it was held by the learned Division Bench that "it, therefore, follows that what the Legislature held to be an interlocutory order not by itself fit to be appealable, should not by such a device be held fit enough to attract the more important, and at a higher level, the constitu tional jurisdiction. Any contention, or practice to the contrary, would defeat and deflect the legislative intent, which has been disapproved in Mumta2 Hussain Bhutta v. Chief Administrator, Auquf etc." t is obvious that I am bound by the judgment of the learned Division Bench with which I respect fully agree if 1 say so.

5. In view of what has been stated above, these two writ petitions have no force are dismissed with costs.

6. In view of the fact that the impugned orders of the learned Rent Controller were suspended by the High Court, the petitioners are allowed a week's time to carry out the orders and in case of default the same conse quences would follow which would have followed for non‑compliance of the orders of the learned Rent Controller.

These petitions are thus disposed of.

K. M. A. 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.