Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition .No. 43 of 1984, decided on 29th January, 1984.

---Art. 9--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13--Eviction order--Suspension of ejectment order without notice to landlord after Court hours amending earlier order--Effect--Held: Once Rent Controller had signed order, it was not permissible for him to alter same and make additions therein--Practice of making such additions would rob away sanctity attached to proceedings recorded by Tribunals/ Courts.

Syed Khizar Hayat for Petitioner.

Muhammad Afzal Qureshi for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 29th January, 1984.

The petitioner brought an ejectment petition against the respondent which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, by are ex parte order, dated 29-9-1983, The respondent then moved an application for setting aside this order on which the Rent Controller directed that notice would be issued to the petitioner for 3-11-1983. When the case came up for hearing before him on that date he passed the following order :-

"Counsel for the petitioner-landlord is present. The applicant respondent not present. Copy supplied to the petitioner's counsel. Case to come up for reply and arguments on 22-11-1983 ...."

It is discernible from the available record that on 3-11-1983, after the adjournment of the case and after the Court hours the respondent's counsel appeared before the Rent Controller, who requisitioned the file and added the following sentence to .his order aforesaid:

" ....Execution of order, dated 29-9-1983 be suspended till that time. "

The factum of taking up of the matter after the Court hours and passing of an order suspending the execution of the ejectment order, finds mention in the Rent Controller's subsequent order made on the respondent's application, dated 17-11-1983 which is reproduced below:

"Counsel for the petitioner-landlord' is present. On 3-11-1983 the counsel for the petitioner-landlord was present but no one was present on behalf of the applicant-respondent. The case was adjourned to 22-11-1983 for reply and arguments. After the Court hours the counsel for the applicant appeared and requested for suspension of the eviction order, dated 29-10-1983 which was accepted in the absence of the petitioner-landlord or his counsel. The applicant was required to supply a copy of this order before the executing Court. This application is, therefore, disposed of as such."

2. The petitioner .called in question the order, dated 3-11-1983 through an appeal. .The learned District Judge who heard the same deprecated the procedure adopted by the learned Rent Controller in taking up the case in the absence of the petitioner and his counsel, after adjourning it to 22-11--1983. He dubbed it as illegal and improper but declined to intervene on the ground that the appeal against such an interlocutory order was not competent and dismissed the same.

3. With this background of the case the petitioner has come to this Court for removal of, the order, dated 3-11-1983 through judicial review.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The facts are not in dispute and there is no dental that on 3-11-1983, the learned Rent Controller after adjourning the case made additions in his order not only in the absence of the opposite party but also after the Court hours. The learned counsel for the respondent made a vain endeavour to support the impugned order and urged that in emergent cases for preservation of the property in dispute or for warding off the imminent mischief, the Courts invariably pass interlocutory orders giving immediate relief to the aggrieved person. He, however, found it difficult to go to the extent the learned Rent Controller had gone and expressed his inability to approve the manner in which the learned Rent Controller conducted the proceedings.

5. Indeed the way in which the :earned Rent Controller dealt with the matter is quite objectionable and does not match with the elementary judicial norms governing the proceedings before the Tribunals entrusted with the duty of adjudicating upon the rights of the parties arrayed before them. Once he had signed an order, it was not permissible for him to alter the same and make any addition therein. Such practice shall rob away sanctity attached to the proceedings recorded by such Tribunals. The learned District Judge, rightly noticed the impropriety of the impugned order. Of course, he could not interfere as the appeal was not. maintainable. This writ petition is, therefore, accepted and the impugned order declared to have been passed without lawful authority. The respondent's application which is pending, shall be disposed of in accordance with law.

The costs shall be borne by the latter which are fixed at Rs.1,000.

A . A .

Find a Lawyer Near You

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