2005 PLP 867 (MLD)

Through this writ petition, an order passed on 29-7-2004 by learned Rent Controller, Rahimyar Khan in the case of ejectment, filed by Mst. Shahida Nazli v. Muhammad Saleem Akhtar, with regard to a house, situated in Rahimyar Khan City, has been challenged. As per learned counsel, in the aforesaid case, the learned Rent Controller under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 has passed an order to deposit Rs.10,000 as an arrears of rent and has also directed to pay rent from April, 2004 for future, at the rate of Rs.2200 per month till further order. The learned counsel has disputed the correctness of this order by stating that the tentative order under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was to be passed after the assessment and examination of the documents and hearing the parties, which method was not followed by the learned Rent Controller. It has further been argued by the learned counsel that learned Rent Controller was to direct the parties to produce documents and to get the statements recorded of the parties before passing the impugned order under the aforesaid section; and the version of the landlord was not to be believed straightway for the passing of the impugned order. He has relied upon 1993 CLC 2435 (Tauqeer Shahid v. Additional District Judge and others), PLD 1995 Lahore 352 (Muhammad Munir v. Mst. Zahida Parveen) and 1993 CLC 655 (Muhammad Tufail v. Mst. Veeran Bibi and others).

2. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and perused the record of the case minutely.

3. The impugned order passed on 29-7-2004 appears to have been passed in the presence of both the learned counsel of the parties and the learned Rent Controller had granted the opportunity of hearing and had considered the version of the petitioner as well as of respondent. It is not necessary in all cases for the learned Rent Controller to direct the parties to present the documents. It is the sweet will of the parties to present the document, which they consider necessary for the support of their version. So, is the case with the recording of the statement. As the matter was simple and both the parties had admitted the contents of that diary which report was in fact entered in the police station with the consent of both the parties. The contents of this daily diary although have now been disputed by the writ petitioner, on the ground that the settlement recorded therein was the result of coercion and undue duress. But this version of the writ petitioner shall be proved by him in the proceedings, if he considers it necessary, but for the decision of the case under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the contents of daily diary dated 31-12-2003 have prima facie proved that Rs.10,000 were to be paid admittedly by the writ petitioner/tenant with regard to arrears of rent of the disputed premises to the landlord on the aforesaid date. The alleged receipt dated 4-12-2003 and the execution of rent deed dated 8-12-2003 and cannot grant any benefit to the writ petitioner because these were the documents which were executed prior in time to the above mentioned daily diary, which settlement was made on 31-12-2003 after the execution of above mentioned documents. Therefore, I do not consider it a fit case for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, as the impugned order has been passed by the learned Rent Controller within his jurisdiction and cannot be declared or termed as illegal or unlawful. So, the writ petition is dismissed in limine without any order as to costs. H.B.T./M-969/L Petition dismissed.