P L D 1967 Supreme Court 289 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑Leave to appeal was given in the case to consider the constitutionality of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The facts briefly are that Pannu Ram, respondent, and his brother Mehar Chand, deceased, owned a house in Bannu city. At the time of Partition they migrated to Miran Shah in the tribal area on account of which the house was treated by the Rehabilitation Department as evacuee property and allotted to Sh. Aminullah, appellant. After some time Pannu Ram came back to Bannu, Mehr Chand having died in the meantime and on his application the house was restored to him. The appellant however, continued to remain in possession as a tenant under Pannu Ram and paid rent to him for sometime. Subsequently he made a default as a result of which the respondent applied to the Rent Controller under section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Act (IX of 1957) for his eviction on grounds of non‑payment of rent and for personal occupation. The application was opposed inter alla on the grounds that the respondent was not the owner of the house and that Act IX of 1957 did not apply to Bannu city. It was also denied that the appellant had at any time paid rent to the respondent for the house. The application succeeded and an order for the eviction of the appellant was made by the Rent Controller on 1‑4‑1959. The decision was on appeal maintained by the District Judge and the High Court of West Pakistan at Peshawar from which leave to appeal was granted as a number of constitutional grounds were raised about the vires of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, which had succeeded Act IX of 1957, during the pendency of the application for eviction. In the former Province of N.‑W. F. P. the relationship between landlords and tenants were regulated by the N.‑W. F. P. House Rent Control Act XV of 1946. After Integration the said Act along with other similar enactments in force in the unifying Provinces and the State of Bahawalpur was repealed by the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act IX of 1957 which was promulgated by the President on 6‑7‑1957 in pursuance to the Proclamation under Article 193 of the 1956 Constitution and delegation of legislative duties to him in respect of the Province of West Pakistan by Act XX of 1957 passed by the Parliament on 30th April 1957. The Proclamation was revoked by the President on 15‑7‑1957 and after the lapse of six months, that is, on 15‑1‑1958 Act IX of 1957 expired thereby inter alia reviving the N.‑W. F. P. House Rent Control Act, 1946. The application made by the respondent on 3‑5‑1958 for eviction of the appellant under section 13(5) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act IX of 1957 was therefore not competent in law and proceedings in pursuance thereof were coram non judice. So far the appellant is on sure ground, but on the 23rd February 1959, when those proceedings were pending the Governor of West Pakistan by virtue of the Proclamation of Emergency on 7th October 1958 and Article 4 of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order I of 1958, promulgated the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, which validated those proceedings in the following manner. Section 1(4) of the Ordinance provided that subsection (5) of section 13 and section 19 shall come into force at once and the remaining provisions of the Ordinance shall be deemed to have effect on and from the date of the expiry of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957, that is, from 15‑1‑1958. Section 21 of the Ordinance repealed the Baluchistan Rent Control Regulation, 1945, the N.‑W. F. P. House Rent Control Act, 1946, the Bahawalpur State Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947 and the Sind Rent Restriction Act, 1952, from 15‑1‑1958 on which date Act IX of 1957 had expired and provided that any order de by a Controller or Rent Controller or any Court or appellate or revenue authority in any proceedings under any of the said enactments shall be deemed to have effect as an order under the Ordinance and all proceedings pending with any Controller shall stand transferred to and be continued under this Ordinance as if the same were instituted under the provisions of this Ordinance, etc. It meant that notwithstanding the expiry of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act IX of 1957 on 15‑1‑1958 and revival of the N.‑W. F. P. House Rent Control Act XV of 1946 the application C made by the respondent on 3‑5‑1958 was to be deemed to be an application made under section 13 of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and the Controller had the jurisdiction to make the order for eviction of the appellant on 1‑4‑1959. The appellant, however, contends that the Governor of West Pakistan could not give effect to the Ordinance of 1959 from a date earlier than 7th October 1958, when the Proclamation of Emergency was made and that a similar limitation was placed on his powers by Article 4 of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order I of 1958 which required him to treat the N: W. F. P. House Rent Control Act as continuing in force until repealed, altered or amended by the competent authority. Both the contentions proceed on the concept that a legislative body cannot frame laws effective from a date earlier than the formation of that body and that a law which has remained in force up to the passing of a repealing or amending Act cannot be repealed or amended with retrospective effect. No authority is cited in support of this view. On the contrary the established rule is that subject to any constitutional bar there is no legal limit to the making and unmaking of laws by a Legislature.4 Similarly it is within the domain of the Legislature to appoint at date for the commencement of the laws made by it including a date preceding the making of the laws. In short the authority to legislate includes the authority to legislate with retrospective effect. The doctrine stems from the sovereignty of a Legislature which in the instant case was vested in the Governor of West Pakistan subject only to the limitations imposed by the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order I of 1958. The contention that as the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, was promulgated by the Governor in pursuance to the Proclamation of Emergency on 7th October 1958, he could not give effect to it from an earlier date therefore does not hold good. The second contention based on Article 4 of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order I of 1958 is equally without force. Article 4 inter alia provides that notwithstanding the abrogation of the Constitution all laws in force in Pakistan immediately before the Proclamation shall so far as applicable continue in force until altered, repealed or amended by a competent authority. The N.‑W. F. P. House Rent Control Act accordingly remained in force until the 23rd of February 1959, when it was repealed with effect from 15‑1‑1958. The question which arose for consideration in this context was not whether it remained in force until repealed, but whether the repealing statute could be given effect from an earlier date. The answer to it as seen above was in the affirmative. The stress laid by the learned counsel on the word "until" in Article 4 of the Laws (.Continuance in Force) Order I of 1958 and the decision of this Court in Reference Vol. of 1957 (P L D 1957 S C 219), that if in a provision of the Constitution. terminus a quo is given and the end of the period of time is also indicated by the word "until" then in the absence of words Penn showing, expressly or by necessary implication, that the continuity of the period may be disturbed, the period continues until the happening of the period mentioned in the until‑clause had therefore no bearing on the point. In this view the order made by the Rent Controller of Bannu for eviction of the appellant on 1‑4‑1959 was with jurisdiction. No other argument was addressed to us on the merits of the case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. K. B. A. Appeal dismissed.