Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.242 of 1982, decided on 8th October, 1985.

‑‑‑O. III, r. 2(a)‑‑Deed of Special Power of Attorney‑‑Scope‑ Extension‑‑Deed of special power‑of‑attorney by which attorney was authorised by petitioners to conduct case before Rent Controller and further file and defend appeal, held, could not be extended to empower such attorney to invoke writ jurisdiction of High Court by filing writ petition on behalf of petitioners.

‑‑‑Art. 9‑‑Extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court‑‑Invocation of‑ Petitioner did not contest cases either before Rent Controller or before Appellate Authority‑‑List of heirs of deceased tenant furnished to Court below did not embody name of such petitioner‑‑Such petitioner who did not participate in proceedings before Tribunals below, held, could not be allowed to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of ugh Court in circumstances.

‑‑‑Art. 9‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13‑‑Conduct of petitioner before Tribunals below‑‑Writ petition was directed against orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority‑ Petitioner did not participate in proceedings before both Tribunals below‑‑Contention that in Writ Petition question of status of property in dispute has been assailed, therefore, conduct of petitioner before Authorities below should have no bearing on invocation of writ jurisdiction by him, repelled‑‑Held, conduct of petitioner before Tribunals below was certainly relevant and petitioner was precluded from grant of relief prayed for in circumstances.

Abid Hassan Minto for Petitioners.

Anwar Kamal for Respondent No.3.

Date of hearing: 8th October, 1985,

Shahbaz Khan respondent filed an ejectment petition against the petitioners' father namely, Abdul Aziz for his eviction from the quarter in dispute. The latter died during the pendency of the litigation and was substituted by the petitioners. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground of default. The learned Rent Controller by his order dated 4‑12‑1980 decided the preliminary issue regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, against the petitioners and as the non‑payment of the rent was not denied he also evicted them under the same order. This ejectment order was not interfered with by the learned Additional District Judge who dismissed the petitioners appeal on 13‑1‑1982. The orders of the Tribunals below are under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition, on the plea that so far as petitioners Nos.l and 2 are concerned, it has not been instituted by an authorized person and as regards petitioner No.3 she is precluded by her own conduct from grant of any relief under writ jurisdiction, which is discretionary.

3. I find merit in both the contentions. There are two photostate copies of deeds of special power‑of‑attorney both, dated 6‑11‑1979: under which one Abdul Hamid has, been appointed by petitioners Nos.1 and 2 as their attorney. One deed relates to the case before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and under the second deed the attorney has been authorized to conduct case before the Rent Controller and further file and defend the appeal. It is to be seen that "vakalatnama" in favour of Mr. Abid Hassan Minto has been signed by Abdul Hamid on behalf of petitioners Nos.l and 2. When confronted with these two deeds, Mr. Minto willy‑nilly had to concede that the contents thereof cannot be extended to empower the attorney to invoke writ jurisdiction of the High Court by filing the instant writ petition.

4. The writ petition is, however, sought to be sustained on the ground that petitioner No.3 namely, Mst. Fatima Begum has signed the "vakalatnama" in favour of the counsel and thus at least to her extent the petitioner can be endured.

5. I do not feel persuaded to agree with this contention. There are vivid indications on the record that she did not contest the cases either before the Rent Controller of the Appellate Authority. Annexure "R/4" to the written statement is the Rent Controller's order, dated 13‑3‑1980, which shows that she was proceeded against ex parte. As regards the appellate stage, though her name appears in the Memorandum of appeal but she seems to be merely a name lender. This is borne out from the fact that in pursuance of the appellate Court's order, dated 21‑1‑1981 passed while admitting the appeal to regular hearing, she did not tender any bond and such a bond was submitted only by petitioners Nos.l and 2 as it bears the signatures of their attorney i.e. Abdul Hamid alone. Further the lists of heirs of Abdul Aziz furnished to the Court below by petitioners Nos.l and 2 does not embody the name of petitioner No.3. All these factors create a strong impression that petitioner No.3 did not participate in the proceedings before the Tribunals below. There is no good reason to allow her to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, when all along she acquiesced in the proceedings before the Rent Controller and the Appellate authority.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, then came forthwith the argument that in the instant writ petition, the question of status of the property in dispute has been assailed and, therefore, the conduct of petitioner No.3 before the authorities below under Rent laws, should have no bearing on the invocation of writ jurisdiction by her.

7. This argument is also devoid of force. The writ petition is directed against the orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority and thus, her conduct before these Tribunals is certainly relevant which as observed above preclude her from grant of the relief

H..B.T. Writ refused

Find a Lawyer Near You

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