P L D 1993 Lahore 277 (PLP)

This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision No. 597 of 1989 and Writ Petition No. 12 of 1989, as these have arisen from an order dated 4-12-1989 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, dismissed the appeal as well as revision petition filed by the petitioner and upheld the order of the first Court dated 5-4-1989.

2. Few facts relevant for the disposal of these petitions are that on 22-3-1989 the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, herein petitioner instituted a declaratory suit against respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur alleging therein that the petitioner was owner in possession of land in Khata No. 353/321, Khatooni No. 422 Khasra No.196/15 Killa No. 24-B, -measuring 1 Kanal 2 Marlas, Khasra No. 196/16 and Killa No. 3, measuring 6 Kanals 16 Marla's and Killa No. 4 measuring 8 Kanals situated in Chak No. 18/Ford, Tehsil Hasilpur, District Bahawalpur; that Bundu Khan and Muhammad Rafi, herein respondents No. 2 and 3 were in occupation of suit land; that the order of the Rent Controller, Hasilpur dated 7-3-1983 was void ab initio. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was lodged for grant of injunctive order restraining respondent No. 1 from evicting respondents No. 2 and 3, from disputed premises. Another application for the purpose of appointment of local commissioner was also filed.

3. These applications were resisted. It was pleaded that these applications were actuated with sinister motive to stop the eviction of respondents No. 2 and

3. After hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge rejected these applications vide order dated 5-4-1989. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order, petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the first Court disallowing prayer for grant of preventive injunction and filed revision petition against the part of order refusing prayer for appointment of local commissioner. Both, FAO and Revision were dismissed by the learned Add]. District Judge, vide order dated 4-12-1989. These orders are the subject-matter of challenge in these petitions.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of these petitions contended that the two lower forums have not decided the applications correctly; that the petitioner was owner is possession of the land in dispute and, therefore, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction whatsoever to pass the order of eviction of respondents No. 2 and 3 from the disputed premises. Continuing, he added that it was proper that the learned Court of Trial must have appointed local commissioner directing him to undertake the demarcation for ascertaining the truth. Mr. M. Sultan Wattoo, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for Mst. Rashida supported the impugned decision. 5. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have adverted to the arguments addressed by them. Before I proceed to deal to with the contentions of the parties, it. is expedient to note certain features of the case which are not, in dispute. It is not disputed that Mst. Rashida, herein respondent No. 1 had filed petition under section 13 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) for seeking eviction of Bundu Khan and Muhammad Rafi, from disputed premises. The application was contested by respondents No. 2 and 3 and was allowed vide order dated 7-3-1988. Against this order respondents No.2 and 3 had filed appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority under section 15 of the Ordinance. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were still unsatisfied and filed a second appeal before this Court which too was dismissed. In this background Mst. Rashida initiated execution proceedings under the Ordinance in consequence of which the learned Rent Controller issued warrants of possession. It is also not contested that the petitioner had challenged eviction order by filing an objection application before the learned Rent Controller who was pleased to reject the same. The petitioner admittedly tried his luck before the appellate authority but without any success. The petitioner thereafter had filed the civil suit from which these petitions have arisen.

6. From the aforesaid admitted narration of events, it is clear that eviction order passed by the Rent Controller against respondents No. 2 and 3 was affirmed by the appellate authority and so attained finality . Undisputedly, the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller under section 13 of the Ordinance when affirmed by the appellate authority becomes final and is not questionable before the Civil Court in view of finality attached to it under section 15 read with section 16 of the Ordinance. There is no denying that the Ordinance is self-contained statute dealing with the controversies/disputes arising out of tenancies with regard to premises situated within the urban limits. The object of the Ordinance is to provide quick and, expedient machinery for determination of these disputes in order to keep calm and tranquillity within the urban limits. The orders passed by the Rent Controller under section 13 ibid excepting order mentioned under section 15 ibid have been made appealable under section 15 of the Ordinance. The orders made under 'sections 13 and 15 ibid have been made executable before the Rent Controller under section 17 of the Ordinance. From the study of his in built mechanism in the Ordinance, I am quite clear that the matters relating to execution, discharge or any objection to orders passed by the Rent Controller/appellate authority, can be questioned and adjudicated before the executing Court under Order XXI, C.P.C. but not otherwise. Seen from this background I have no doubt left in my mind that the learned two forums below were correct in coming to the conclusion that the application for temporary injunction as Well as application for appointment for local commissioner were 'not only without merit but were also incompetent. The conclusions. of the two forums below are eminently just and are not open to exception.

7. There is yet another aspect of the case which needs to be noticed. The hall-mark of constitutional jurisdiction is to foster justice and to undo wrong. This jurisdiction is exercised,,, to keep the subordinate authorities within the sphere of their statutory powers/duties. It is intended to keep balance in the society. It is not designed to help the people who come to Court with unclean conduct the suppression of materiel facts and zigzag motive. It is worthy to note that the petitioner has 'not appended with these petitions the copy of eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, copy of the order of the appellate Authority, copy of the order of executing Court rejecting objection petition filed by the petitioner, copy of order of appellate Court rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. On account of his conduct I am clear in my mind that the petitioner is disentitled to the grant of relief under constitutional jurisdiction. (See Muhammad, Baran and others v. Member (Settlement anti Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others PLD 1991 SC 691 and Muhammad Saeed and 11 others v. Municipal Corporation, Bahawalpur anti another 1992 CLC 1991. In the light foregoing discussion, these petitions are found to be without any merit and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. AA/1-70/L , I ,;, Petitions dismissed.