P L D 1971 Lahore 529 (PLP)
KHADIM HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1971 Lahore 529 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHADIM HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1971 Lahore 529 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1971 Lahore 529 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1971 Lahore 529 (PLP) (KHADIM HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. M. Akhtar Mir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 15 & 15‑A‑Case pending before Rent Controller‑Cannot be transferred by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 15 & 15‑A‑Case pending before Rent Controller‑Cannot be transferred by High Court. The question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction to transfer a case pending before a Rent Controller. It was contended that having regard to the provisions of sections 15 and 15‑A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the High Court could transfer such case because the words "Appellate Authority" In section 15‑A(a) include the High Court. Held : If the matter is examined with reference to sub section (5) of section 15, it will become clear that the Appellate Authority and the High Court are two separate institutions within the meaning of that section as well as section 15‑A. In that view of the matter, it is obvious that High Court has no power to direct the transfer of a case pending before a Rent Con troller. S. M. Akhtar Mir for Petitioner. Time was given to the learned counsel to study the point whether High Court has jurisdiction to transfer a case pending before a Rent Controller. No case‑law has been cited but learned counsel refers to the provisions of section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, read with section 15‑A and submits that the words "appellate authority" in sub‑clause (a) of section l5‑A include the High Court. The contention has no force. If the matter is examined with reference to subsection (5) of section 15, it will become clear that the appellate authority and the High Court are two separate institutions within the meaning of that section as well as section 15‑A. In that view of the matter, it is obvious that High Court has no power to direct the transfer of a case pending before a Rent Controller.
2. When confronted with this situation, learned counsel submitted that this petition may be treated as an appeal against the order, dated 9‑3‑1970, to consider the charge of the petitioner on the property in dispute. I am not prepared to resort to such a course because institution of such an appeal is, in itself, in doubt. If the learned counsel is really sanguine about his point of view, he can prefer a regular appeal, if so advised, which if filed will be duly attended to on its own facts and relevant law. The petition is dismissed. A. E. Petition dismissed.