1995 PLP 474 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RENT CONTROLLER and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 474 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RENT CONTROLLER and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 474 (MLD)?
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 1995 PLP 474 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 474 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RENT CONTROLLER and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Shamim for Petitioner.
- Shahzad Nasir for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st January, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.13(6)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition against order of Rent Controller for deposit of rent pending decision in ejectment application‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑Petitioner in support of Constitutional petition, maintaining that order in question being not interlocutory but final, Constitutional petition was competent‑‑‑Petitioner's contention was without any force, for if order in question was final, remedy available to petitioner would be to file appeal and not Constitutional petition‑‑‑Constitutional petition being not competent, was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Saeed v. Mst. Sartul Fatima and another PLD 1978 Lah. 1459 and Malik Muhammad Ilyas v. The Rent Controller and others ICA No.192 of 1989 rel. Messrs Ansari Brothers v. Holy Trinity Church Trust PLD 1971 SC 700 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Messrs Ansari Brothers v. Holy Trinity Church Trust PLD 1971 SC 700 ref. Tariq Shamim for Petitioner. Shahzad Nasir for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st January, 1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been asked to show as to how this petition which is directed against an order passed by the Rent Controller for deposit of rent pending decision of ejectment petition under section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, was competent in view of two judgments of Division Benches of this Court in Muhammad Saeed v. Mst. Sartul Fatima and another (PLD 1978 Lahore 1459) and Malik Muhammad Ilyas v. The Rent Controller, etc. (ICA 192(89), decided on 5th December, 1989. He has argued that as the order in question is not interlocutory but is final, the Constitutional petition is competent. This contention of the learned counsel has hardly any force. If the order had been final, the remedy available to the petitioner would have been to file appeal and not this petition. It is, therefore, difficult to agree with the learned counsel that order is not interlocutory or interim in nature.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had been directed by the Rent Controller to deposit the rent with effect from October, 1990 before 30 days of next month and that period has already run out and that the petitioner may be granted some time to deposit the rent now.
3. There appears to be no necessity of giving such an indulgence. The impugned order of the Rent Controller, directing the petitioner to deposit the rent was suspended by this Court on 1st November, 1992 by which time 14 days were still available to the petitioner to deposit the rent. On the principle laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Messrs Ansari Brothers v. Holy Trinity Church Trust (PLD 1971 SC 700) the petitioner can deposit the rent due within a period of 14 days from today.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in any case, the Rent Controller could not have allowed respondent No. 1 to withdraw the rent which had been deposited by the petitioner pending decision of the jurisdictional objection. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 undertakes that respondent shall not withdraw the rent till such time the Rent Controller decides the objection to his jurisdiction. For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed. No costs. A.A./M‑1791/L Petition dismissed.