P L D 1958 (W (PLP)

S. A. Kirmani for Opponent. This is an application under section 32 of the Karachi Small Causes Court Act, 1929, for the revision of the order of the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Karachi passed on an Ejectment Appli cation filed by the applicant. The applicant is the landlady of the house No. 91 /7 in Bihar Colony, Karachi. This house was built for accommodating the uncle of the applicant who was expected here from Bharat. Pend ing the arrival of the applicant's uncle, the house was given on rent to the opponent as a tenant of the applicant. Sometime thereafter the uncle with his family arrived in Karachi for perma nent settlement. The applicant, therefore, made an application to the Rent Controller, Karachi under section 10 (2) (c) of the Karachi Rent Restriction Act, 1953 to grant her certificate for the ejectment of the opponent on the ground that the premises were required by the applicant for use of her uncle for whose benefit they were built. This application was granted by the Rent Con troller, Karachi by his order dated 7th; September 1953, certifying that the premises were reasonably and in good faith required by the applicant. Against this order the opponent filed a revision application being application No. 103 of 1954 which was heard by Mr. Feroze Nana Ghulamally in his capacity as revisional authority nominated under section 15 (5) of the Karachi Rent Restriction Act, 1953. Mr. Feroze Nana Ghulamally dismissed the opponent's revision application and confirmed the grant of certi ficate and the findings of the Rent Controller. The opponent then, on the basis of the Rent Controller's order, filed an ejectment application being Application No. 787 of 1953 under section 18 of the Karachi Small Causes Court Act. This application was heard by Mr. Feroze Nana Ghulamally in his capacity as Chief Judge, Small Causes Court. The learned Judge by his order dated 14th October 1954 rejected the ejectment application. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed. Under section 15 (1) of the Sind Rent Restriction Act the Provincial Government is empowered to revise an order passed by the Rent Controller under section 10 of the Act. Section 15 (5) of the Rent Restriction Act provides that the Provincial Govern ment may pass an order directing that the powers conferred on it by subsection (1) shall be exercisable by a person not below the rank of a Judge, Small Causes Court. In the exercise of these powers the Provincial Government had by a notification ordered that its revisional powers under section 15 (1) should be exercis able by the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court nominating him by his personal name. It was in the exercise of these powers that Mr. Feroze Nana Ghulamally confirmed the order of the Rent Controller that the premises were reasonably and in good faith required by the applicant. Section 17 of the Rent Restriction Act provides : "An order made by the Provincial Government under section 15, and subject to the provisions of that section, an order of the Controller or the Collector shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court". The question to be determined now is whether Mr. Feroze Nana Ghulamally acting as the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court could set aside the order of the Rent Controller which was con firmed by him in his capacity on a revisional authority. Obviously the answer to this question would be in the negative. Having confirmed the order of the Rent Controller who held that the premises were reasonably and in good faith required by the applicant Mr. Feroze Nana Ghulamally in his capacity as the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court had merely to give effect to that order by granting the application of ejectment. Instead of doing so, he has rejected the application and thus in effect has revised his own order passed by him under the Rent Restriction Act. This obviously he could not do for when he acted as a revisional authority under the Rent Restriction Act, he did not act as a Court but as an administrative officer and as such that order was not liable to be revised. It has been held in the case reported in Muhammadi Steamship Co. Ltd., Karachi v. Underwood Type writer Co. (P L D 1951 Sind 35) by the Division Bench of the Chief Court of Sind that even the High Court has no power under section 32 of the Karachi Small Causes Court Act or under section 115 of the C. P. C. to revise the proceedings of the revisional authority under section 15 of the Sind Rent Restriction Act. .I am in res pectful agreement with this decision. The order of the Rent Controller which was subsequently confirmed by Mr. Feroze Nana Ghulamally in the exercise of his powers under the Rent Restric tion Act, was final as provided by section 17 of the Act and therefore, could not be called in question in any Court. I, therefore, hold that since the High Court cannot revise tile order passed under section 15 of the Rent Restriction Act, the Judge of the Small Causes Court who is subordinate to the High Court could not revise the same. I, therefore, reverse the order of Mr. Feroze Nana Ghulam ally passed on 14th October 1954 and order the ejectment of the opponent from the premises in question. The costs of this appli cation are directed to be borne by the opponent. K. M. A. Revision accepted.