1994 CLC 504 (PLP)

Writ Petition No. 265 of 1993, decided on 12th January, 1993. ‑‑‑‑Ss. 13 & 15‑‑‑Ejectment proceedings‑‑‑Evidence of landlord was concluded after about 2 years from filing of ejectment case and since then case suffered adjournments for taking evidence from tenant‑‑‑Landlord, in such a background submitted a petition to Appellate Court for accelerating trial of case for speedy decision‑‑‑After receiving report from Rent Controller, Appellate Court ordered for a decision of the case within two months positively‑‑‑Tenant challenged order/direction of Appellate Court on ground that same was not warranted by law‑‑‑Tenant contended that Appellate Court had no jurisdiction under law to make order for early decision of ejectment cases‑‑‑Contention of tenant was repelled in view of the fact that nature of rent proceedings was such that same required expeditious decision and there were clear instructions of High Court towards that direction‑‑ Appellate Court, having control over all Civil Courts: within limits of its jurisdiction, could competently direct Rent Controller to proceed with despatch‑‑‑Appellate Court, in circumstances was not guilty of any error of law or jurisdiction in directing decision of ejectment cases within a limited span of time. Muhammad Aslam Hayat for Petitioner. Respondent No.l was owner of a building consisting of a house and a shop, situated in the urban area of Kasur. Petitioner was tenant, in them. Respondent No.l filed two ejectment petitions against him for his eviction from the tenanted premises, on account of his own personal need and causing of damage to them. Petitioner resisted the applications. Rent Controller consolidated the trial of the ejectment cases. Order for consolidation of the trial, and, issues settled in the ejectment cases have not been filed. However, it was agreed that respondent No.l concluded his evidence, in May, 1992, and, evprsince, the ejectment cases suffered adjournments for taking of the evidence from the petitioner. In the background, respondent No.l submitted a petition to learned District Judge, Kasur for accelerating the trial of the ejectment cases for their early decision. He called for report from the Rent Controller who apprised him of the stage of proceedings. Thereupon, learned District Judge made an order for decision of the ejectment cases within two months, with an intimation to his Court. It may be noted that the time‑schedule for final decision of the ejectment cases was proposed by the Rent Controller and the District Judge had bound him to abide by it. Against the above direction, a petition in Constitutional jurisdiction has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside of it, on the ground that it was not warranted by Law. It was submitted that the District Judge had no jurisdiction under the Law to make an order for early decision of the ejectment cases. Learned counsel pointed out that there were innumerable case files awaiting adjudications in the District Courts, and, there was no reason for singling out this particular case for a special treatment. I have heard the learned counsel and also seen the order passed by the learned District Judge. He was not guilty of any error of Law or jurisdiction in directing decision of the ejectment cases within a limited span of time. In view of nature of rent‑proceedings, they required expeditious decision. There were clear instructions of the High Court towards that direction. It was unfortunate that despite those instructions, rent matters were being delayed and suffered unnecessary adjournments. Expedition must be the ideal of the Courts, and, if in some cases that goal could not be reached, only regrets could be expressed. Ejectment cases were filed in June, 1990. Despite efflux of two years' period, these could not , be finalized, and, yet the petitioner was aggrieved of the direction towards their early disposal. Much effort was not required to see as to _who. was the beneficiary of delayed decision of the ejectment cases. In the instant case, finger could safely be pointed out towards the petitioner. Having control over all the Civil Courts within local limits of his jurisdiction, District Judge could competently direct the Rent Controller to proceed with despatch. In making the impugned direction, learned District Judge was not seen to have infracted any Rule of Law or propriety. Therefore, his act could not be characterized either as illegal or without jurisdiction. I must proceed to observe that even if I had discovered some defect in the impugned order, I would not have been inclined to interfere, because it had always been my earnest wish that cases must be decided quickly, so that the affected parties were relieved of the suffering caused by them. With these observations I do not find any justification for interference, in equitable jurisdiction of this Court. Writ petition fails in limine and is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./Z‑66/L Petition dismissed.