P L D 1978 Lahore 488 (PLP)
MRs. FEROZE ASLAM-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR-Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1978 Lahore 488 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | -- S. 15-Appeal-Landlord's application for eviction of tenant not finally disposed of-Landlord having right of appeal in event of final orders being passed on his application entitled to challenge in such appeal all interlocutory orders not independently appealable under S. 15-Interlocutory order passed by Rent Controller setting aside an earlier ex parte ejectment order being thus appealable, contention that petitioner would have no remedy against impugned order except by way of writ petition, held, not correct-Writ petition not entertainable in case of appeal against similar orders being not competent and party aggrieved to wait till final order passed entitling it to file appeal under S. 15.-Writ-Appeal (civil). |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah,J |
| Parties | MRs. FEROZE ASLAM-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR-Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1978 Lahore 488 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1978 Lahore 488 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- S. 15-Appeal-Landlord's application for eviction of tenant not finally disposed of-Landlord having right of appeal in event of final orders being passed on his application entitled to challenge in such appeal all interlocutory orders not independently appealable under S. 15-Interlocutory order passed by Rent Controller setting aside an earlier ex parte ejectment order being thus appealable, contention that petitioner would have no remedy against impugned order except by way of writ petition, held, not correct-Writ petition not entertainable in case of appeal against similar orders being not competent and party aggrieved to wait till final order passed entitling it to file appeal under S. 15.-Writ-Appeal (civil). bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah,J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1978 Lahore 488 (PLP) (MRs. FEROZE ASLAM-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian 0amar-ud Din Ahmad for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 15-Appeal-Landlord's application for eviction of tenant not finally disposed of-Landlord having right of appeal in event of final orders being passed on his application entitled to challenge in such appeal all interlocutory orders not independently appealable under S. 15-Interlocutory order passed by Rent Controller setting aside an earlier ex parte ejectment order being thus appealable, contention that petitioner would have no remedy against impugned order except by way of writ petition, held, not correct-Writ petition not entertainable in case of appeal against similar orders being not competent and party aggrieved to wait till final order passed entitling it to file appeal under S. 15.-[Writ-Appeal (civil)]. Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain P L D 1975 S C 457 reel. Rashid Ahmed v. Soofi Muhammad Saleem and another P L D 1976 Lah. 1450 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Mian 0amar-ud Din Ahmad for Appellant. Through this writ petition a landlord has called in question an order passed by a learned Rent Controller; whereby after setting aside an earlier ex paste ejectment order passed against the respondent/tenant, he has proceeded to hear the petition for eviction filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel has contended that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to set aside the ex Darts order and that era appeal against such an order being not competent the landlord has moved this Court in writ jurisdiction.
2. It cannot be doubted that a final order of dismissal of the landlord'6 application for eviction has not yet been passed. The Rent Controller has commenced the proceedings afresh after setting aside the ex paste order. If the when the Rent Controller passes a final order dismissed the petitioner' application, he will have a right of appeal, and it is not denied that in that appeal all interlocutory orders which if they are n.)t independently appealable under section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. can be brought under challenge. Looked at in this context it cannot be said that the petitioner would have no remedy against the order which has been brought under challenge in this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel has also contended that the petitioner would suffer unnecessary harm through the conduct of proceedings by a forum which according to him, has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter any further. Similar situation was visualized and arguments addressed in the case of Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain (P L D 1975 S C 457) their Lordships were pleased to observe as follows : "Reference has been made to these dates to underline the unfortunate fact that it has taken almost 10 years to tiring the matter to this Court for its decision on a purely preliminary point, leaving the main controversy about the liability of the respondent for ejectment to be determined In the fresh round of litigation between the parties. Fragmentary decisions of this character have been described by their Lordships of the Privy Council In Nannelal v. Umrao Singh as most inconvenient (which) tt rd to delay administration of justice." I also took note of a similar situation in case of Ra.9htd Ahmad v. Soofi Muhammad Saleem and another (`P L D 1976 Lah. 1450,) and relying ors the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Ibrahim have held that if the appeals against the similar orders are not competent , on the basis of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, the writ petitions also, would riot be entertained. The party aggrieved in such like situation should wait tall a final order is passed against it and then file an appeal under section 15 of the Ordinance. (4) No justification has been made out for taking a different view in this case. This petition, accordingly, is dismissed to limine. S. A. H. Petition dismissed.