1992 PLP 317 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑ ‑Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, could be exercised only if it was demonstrated that Court/Tribunal below had passed impugned order without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction or in defiance of law. Ch. Muhammad Arshad for Petitioner. This petition is under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for declaration to the effect that the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Gujrat and order of affirmance passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gujrat is without jurisdiction, without any lawful authority and hence nullity in the eye of law.

2. The facts in brief are; that Jan Muhammad is a tenant, while Allah Ditta respondent No.1 is owner/landlord. Rented premises is a house bearing No.18/385‑B situated in Guru Nanak Pura (Usman Pura), Gujrat. It was on 11‑7‑1985 Allah Ditta filed an application for eviction of Jan Muhammad respondent from the rented premises on the ground of default and personal requirement. This application was contested. It was pleaded that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties, that the applicant was not the owner of house in dispute; that the respondent was in occupation of house since partition; that before the institution of application, he constructed a shop on the frontage of house; that no notice under section 30 of Displaced Persons (Comp. & Rehab.) Act, 1958 (XXVIII of 1958) was given to him.

3. The issues were framed. Upon the consideration of evidence of both the parties, the Rent Controller accepted the application by order dated 9‑10- 1988 by holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant was proved. It was held that the rented premises was allotted to the father of the petitioner, who had transferred the same in favour of the respondent through registered gift deed dated 26‑12‑1984. The question of default and other questions were decided against tenant. On appeal the learned Addl. District Judge came to the same conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition contended that the findings of the two Courts below on the question of service of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. & Rehab.) Act, 1958 was incorrect. It was further contended that neither the necessary issues were framed nor the petitioner was given an opportunity to adduce point raised in written reply.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record. It is a well‑settled principle of law that the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court can be exercised only if it is demonstrated that the impugned order is passed by the Court/Tribunal without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction and in case of defiance of law. It is not disputed that the Rent Controller and the first appellate Court had the power to decide this case. The point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be examined in Constitutional jurisdiction.

6. For the reasons stated above, this petition is found to be without any merit and is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./J‑123/L Petition dismissed.