1988 PLP 2281 (CLC)

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑ Pre‑admission notice has been issued but it appears that respondents 1 and 2 have not been served. This Constitutional petition has been filed in respect of two rent cases which are pending before IInd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi ( West) . Grievance of‑ the petitioner is that he is landlord and has filed these 2 rent cases against his tenants for ejectment on the grounds of default, subletting and additions and alterations and had filed two applications separately in both the rent cases under Order 16, Rule 1 read with section 20 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for summoning some witnesses and both these applications were dismissed. He had filed third application for consolidation of both rent cases but that was also dismissed. In the Constitutional petition, jurisdiction of the Rent Controller as such is not called in question. We have perused all the three impugned orders and have heard at length, the learned counsel, who is appearing for the petitioner. It would be pertinent to point out that in Rent Case No. 62 of 1985 petitioner is landlord and has filed ejectment case against one tenant namely Sultan Aziz. In the second Rent Case No. 63 of 1985, landlord is same but tenants are two namely Abdul Qudus and Sultan Aziz. Prayer in both these applications is that four witnesses be summoned. The first witness is Choudhry Muhammad Akram, S.I. of Gulbahar Police Station. He is to be summoned in connection with investigation he conducted in F.I. R. No. 43/81 against the petitioner and his brother for offences under sections 448 and 452, P.P.C. in which the Investigating Officer recorded 161 statements of four persons. Petitioner wants the S.I. to appear in the Court to produce copy of F.I.R. and 161, Cr.P.C. statements of those four witnesses. Second witness proposed to be summoned is any Officer from Ration Card Office. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he does not know, who would be the concerned officer but the intention is production of original counterfoil of Ration Card No. 729135, which is in the name of Sultan Aziz. So far the third witness is concerned, the request is made for any officer who may be summoned from the office of Excise and Taxation Department to bring application of Sultan Aziz and record of ‑ P. T.I. Register. Fourth witness proposed to be summoned is Incharge of Interrogation Cell and petitioner wants that some officer should come from that Interrogation yell alongwith statement in a Zina case arising from F.I.R. No. 338/85. Since this application is repeated in both the rent cases, learned Rent Controller has passed the same order in both the cases which are impugned in this petition separately. Reasons assigned by the Rent Controller for dismissing both these applications are firstly that these applications have been filed belatedly after three years of the institution of ejectment proceedings. Secondly that he has limited jurisdiction as Rent Controller. It is also observed by the Rent Controller that contentions as raised in the applications by the landlord could be agitated in other proceedings of competent jurisdiction and thirdly that documents sought to be produced relate to the period 1981‑84 and lastly that these applications had been filed only for the purpose of delaying the proceedings. So far powers of Rent Controller are concerned, under section 20 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the Rent Controller is competent to summon the witnesses. Such request can be made at any time and it is for the Rent Controller to decide every such request on merits. This special law also contemplates that the rent proceedings should be concluded expeditiously without entering into procedural complications and the procedure is to be evolved by' the Rent Controller. We are in agreement with the reasons assigned by the Rent Controller and additionally we observe that documents mentioned in the applications above could be produced by the petitioner himself and he can also cross‑examine respondents at the proper time and confront them with those documents. No illegality has been pointed out in the proceedings of the Rent Controller particularly in connection with his dealing of these two applications, in which we feel that he has acted quite according to law. Third Application is for consolidation of both rent cases. This application is dismissed for the reason that the tenements involved in both these cases are different and bear different numbers. In the disposal of this application as well, we do not find any reason to interfere because Rent Controller has acted according to law and he is quite competent to dispose of this application and no illegality has been pointed out. Not only the tenements are different but it appears that in Rent Case No. 62/85, there is only one respondent and in Rent Case No.63/85 there are 2 respondents. In any case n interference is called for under the constitutional jurisdiction, as such the petition is dismissed in limine. H. B.? T. / M‑514 / K? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.