2004 PLP 1796 (YLR)

Mumtaz Ahmad for Petitioner. This order shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.569, 570 and 571 of 2004 as common questions are involved. The petitioner in all these cases filed applications for ejectment of the private respondents in these cases. The written statements were filed. The pleadings were examined on 3‑6‑2003 and issues were framed. The examination of the pleadings and said issues do go to show that the relationship of tenant and landlord between the contesting parties was not denied and no objection was thrown to the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller. The grievance being made out by the petitioner in all these cases is that the learned Rent Controller completely ignored the mandatory provisions of section 17(8) g of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act. 1963 and despite application being made refuse to pass an order thereunder vide impugned order dated 21‑1‑2004.

3. I have examined the copies of the records. As stated by me above, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the contesting parties were admitted in all these cases. This being so, learned Rent Controller was bound to pass an order C under section 17(8) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The defect which is both procedural and substantial is apparent on the face of record and needs to be corrected at the earliest. I may note here that apart from the mandatory nature of the said provision of, law, it has been put in said Act with a definite purpose, Honourable Supreme Court, while construing a similar provision in the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, in the case of Muhammad Amin v. Ghulam Nabi and 2 others PLD 1990 SC 1201 quoted with‑, approval following the observations made in the case of Ghulam Muhammad Khan Lundkhor v. Safdar Ali PLD 1967 SC 530:‑‑ "The object of this subsection is not so much to afford the landlord an expeditious method of realizing the rent but rather to protect a tenant who is mindful of his obligations from eviction. In interpreting the provisions of the Ordinance it must not be overlooked that the provisions thereof purport not only to curtail seriously the rights that a landlord enjoys under the general law, as contained in the Transfer of Property Act, of evicting a tenant by merely serving upon him a notice to quit but also to co relatively give special benefits and protections to tenants under certain conditions. Upon general principles, therefore, where a Statute grants a privilege upon certain conditions the person seeking the privilege must show that he has strictly complied with those conditions. Unless those conditions are strictly fulfilled the privilege will not be available." It will thus be seen that the very right vesting in the tenant to put up a defence is dependent upon compliance of the said I order which law directs in mandatory terms to be made by the learned Rent Controller.

4. All these writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with a direction that the learned Rent Controller, Rawalpindi Cantt., to examine the pleadings of the parties and to pass an order in strict compliance of section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, immediately and to proceed further in accordance with law. A copy of this order be remitted to the learned Rent Controller, Rawalpindi Cantt. S.A.K./I‑18/L Petitions accepted.