Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 140 of 1980, decided on 13th August, 1983.

(From order dated 27th November, 1979 of the Lahore High Court passed in S. A. O. No: 101/1972)

--Art. 185(3) read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordi nance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑Ejectment proceedings‑‑Rent Controller deciding only preliminary issue, out of four, and dismissing eject ment application‑‑High Court not approving such decision of preliminary issues and holding that in appeal able cases trial Court should decide all issues to avoid remand‑Held, order of High Court cannot be interfered with.

S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Ch. Ishan‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 13th August, 1983.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of the High Court to interfere in their second appeal, with an order of remand passed by the appellate Court is a rent matter.

2. In the proceeding brought by the respondent, who claimed to have purchased the property from its transferee the following preliminary issues had been framed :

"(1) Whether the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction in the case

O. R.

(2) Whether the petition is incompetent O. R.

(3) Whether valid notices under sections 30, D. P. Act, 1958, and 13‑A of Ordinance VI of 1959 have been served on the respondent O. P.

(4) Whether the parties are landlord and tenant O. P.

The Rent Controller decided the fourth issue only which went in favour of the petitioners and accordingly dismissed the ejectment application. The appellate Court, however set aside the order and directed the Controller "to decide all the issues afresh after considering the entire evidence on the file". The respondent, who had during the pendency of the appeal applied for producing additional evidence, was asked to press his application before the Controller. The High Court did not approve of personal decision of the preliminary issues by the Controller and accordingly held that "it is appropriate that in appeal able cases the trial Court should decide all the issues to avoid remand".

2. We do not think that there is any scope for interfering with the decision of the High Court. Learned counsel submits that an earlier appeal Brought by the respondent against the finding on the preliminary issue having been dismissed on 21‑6‑1971 the finding on the issue had become rest judicator. There is no substance in the submission because that earlier appeal had not only been dismissed for non‑maintainability but also such contention had not been put forth before the High Court. This petition for leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

S. Q. 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.