1995 PLP 564 (CLC)

(i) Mrs. B.S. Khan v. Pakistan State Oil Co. Limited (1989 SCMR 75). (ii) Pakistan State Oil Company Limited v. Khaliq Raza Khan (1994 CLC 1866). (iii) Malik Sher Mast Khan v. Muhammad Diyar Khan and others (1988 SCMR 1186). (iv) Hazur Bux v. Jethanand and others (1988 MLD 2018), (i) Crescent Publicity Service v. S.M. Younus and others (1980 SCMR 779). (ii) S.M. Younus and others v. M/s. Crescent Publicity Service (1980 CLC 441). (iii) Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. Salahuddin Qureshi (PL D 19 4 Kar. 10). (iv) Nazir Ahmed v. Holaram (1985 CLC 41). (v) M/s. Asmat Agencies v. M/s. Shaikh Yousufally Son Limited (1983 CLC 2088). (vi) Muhammad Iqbal v. Mrs. Syed Habiba Rizvi (PLD 1 4 Kar. 227). (vii) Mushtaq Hussain v. Muhammad Shafi (1979 SCMR 496). (viii) Mst. Akhtar Jehan Begum and others v. Muhammad Azam Khan (PLD 1983 SC 1). (ix) M. Nazir v. S. Shaukat Ali (1982 SCMR 985). (x) Muhammad Yousaf and others v. Mst. Rashida Zohra (1977 CLC (xi) Roshan Din v. S.M. Badruddin (PLD 1969 Kar. 546): In (ii) above a learned Single Judge of this Court took view that in case an order of deposit of rent was made by the High Court 'in second appeal under section 13(6) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, then for non‑compliance of such an order defence can be struck off. Said judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court of Pakistan which under the judgment mentioned at (i) above, maintained the same and held that High Court was competent to strike off defence of the tenant on his failure to comply with High Court order in second appeal to deposit rent. Similar view was also taken in (iii), (viii) and in (ix) above. In (iv) above the view taken was that the provisions of section 16(2) of the Ordinance are mandatory and the default must result in summary disposal of case without taking any other proceedings. In (v) above the tenant conduct exhibited gross negligence in compliance of the order under section 16(1) of the Ordinance and cause for condonation of default was not impressive and it did not appear to be correct and order of the Rent Controller directing eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent and for non‑compliance of order for deposit of tentative rent was not maintained. In (vi) above the view taken was that directions to deposit rent can be issued at the appellate stage and non‑compliance to deposit rent could be met by striking off tenant's defence. In (vii) above the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that obedience of an order passed under section 13(6) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, cannot be shelved on the ground of a regular finding be given about the actual amount due and that compliance of the direction under section 13(6) of said Ordinance is a condition precedent for requiring the Rent Controller for examining the bona fide or correctness of the defence pleas. The most important point in this case is about competency of the Rent Controller to entertain the rent application in respect of the property alleged to be belonging to KPT. It is pertinent to note that the respondent during his cross‑examination in Rent Case No. 966/87 admitted that plot of the property in litigation be mgs to KPT. He admitted that he had no title documents of said property but he claimed to be possessing documents about his possession. Eve in Rent Case No. 1073/86 the respondent stated in grounds that he had no title documents of the premises in litigation but he claimed to have raised the structure. He admitted that the construction raised over the disputed plot was without obtaining permission from K.M.C. or any other department. He admitted that twice the premises were demolished by K.M.C., but he re‑occupied the premises. He also admitted that the premises are situated on K.P. land and it was within the boundary of K.P.T. In view of clear admission by the respondent there is no difficulty in considering the point whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction in the matter. According to subsection (2) of section‑ 3 of the Ordinance, the Government of Sindh may by notification exclude any class of premises, or all premises in any area from operation of all or any of the provisions of this Ordinance. In pursuance of such provisions the Government of Sindh had issued a Gazette Notification dated 15‑3‑1981 by which if has exempted the premises belonging to Karachi Port Trust. Said Gazette Notification was considered in the case of Mrs. B.S. Khan v. Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. (1989 SCMR 75) where it was held that it is property itself and not any particular relationship concerning it which was exempted from purview of the Ordinance. In the' case of Pakistan State Oil Company v. Khaliq Raza Khan (1994 CLC 1866) the view taken was that‑where the demised premises were built by the landlord on the property owned by the Federal Government, the Ordinance would not apply to such land and the ejectment application filed in respect of such property was not maintainable and the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. In this context it was observed in same case that the legislature did not intend to exempt the relationship of landlord and tenant, but intended to confer on the premises owned by Government in immunity from operation of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. In view of this discussion it is clear that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the Rent applications filed by the respondents. Consequently I have no alternative but to accept both these appeals and set aside the impugned orders and order disposal of the appeals. A.A./M‑2043/K Appeals accepted.