Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 4464 of 1986, decided on 8th October, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 2(b) & 13‑‑Evicition proceedings‑‑Jurisdiction of Rent Controller‑‑Jurisdiction of Rent Controller to adjudicate upon controversy regarding insanity of certain landlords on whose behalf eviction petition was filed by their mother as their guardian ad litem not disputed by tenant‑‑Even otherwise Rent Controller being competent to regulate proceedings before him, objection raised by tenant that insanity of landlords should be determined by holding inquiry, held, was not in good faith, but was aimed at merely prolonging proceedings.

‑‑‑Ss. 2(b) & 13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑ Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑No illegality muchless a jurisdictional defect found in order passed by Rent Controller‑‑Such order, held, would not call for its removal through judicial review before Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.

Mehr Ghulam Ali Mubashar for Petitioner.

The respondents sought the petitioner's eviction from the commercial premises inter alia on the ground of default. In the title of the petition, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were shown as of unsound mind. Mst. Shamim Begum respondent No.l herein who is their mother in the capacity of guardian ad litem filed the application on their behalf. In the written statement, the petitioner raised the objection that they were not lunatic; insisted upon their medical examination and an enquiry on the question of their insanity. The learned Rent Controller procured the presence of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 before him and after satisfying himself as to their lunacy turned down the petitioner's objection and appointed respondent No.2 as their guardian ad litem.

2. The order. dated 9‑7‑1986 passed by the learned Rent Controller in this respect has been brought under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that it was incumbent on the Rent Controller to hold an enquiry and then give a finding regarding their lunacy.

3. It is obvious that the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to adjudicate upon the controversy is not disputed even by the petitioner. Even otherwise, it was well within the competence of the Rent Controller to regulate the proceedings before him. As already maintained respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were produced before the Rent Controller who came to the conclusion that they being insane had to be represented by their mother who obviously had no interest adverse to that of the respondents. It seems to me that the objection raised by the petitioner was not in good faith and was aimed merely prolonging the proceedings

There is no illegality muchless a jurisdictional defect in the impugned order to call for its removal through judicial review. Dismissed in limine.

H . B . T. 1650 / L

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.