1990 PLP 957 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondent No.

1. Zahid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing: 1st August, 1989. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioners, allegedly tenants of the respondent No. 2, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 30th of May, 1989, whereby their Constitution Petition directed against an eviction order passed by the appellate authority, was dismissed.

2. The petitioners claimed the transfer of property to them by order of transfer dated 13‑1‑1960. The predecessor‑in‑interest of respondent No. 2 namely Allah Bakhsh purchased in auction the adjoining property on 5‑9‑1960. A demarcation of the property was got done through the Settlement Authorities by the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondent No. 2 ex parte against the petitioners, and the portion of the shop now m dispute between the parties, was m that demarcation allocated to him. On the basis of such demarcation the respondent No. 2 claimed the statutory relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the petitioners and filed a case for their eviction on various grounds.. The Rent Controller dismissed it holding that relationship could not be established before him on the material on record. On dismissal of his application an appeal was preferred by him. The appellate authority reversed that decision and ordered the eviction of the petitioners. A Constitution Petition was then filed and the High Court got the demarcation done through the Notified Officer and dismissed the petition on the ground that a controverted factual question was involved.

3. Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the notified authority has not actually conducted the demarcation as ordered by the High Court and that from the evidence and other material he was able to show that the petitioners were the transferees of the disputed portion of the property and ex parte order of demarcation passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 25th of February, 1975 was a nullity because it was passed ex parte and also after P T D had been issued. 4: The law laid down by this Court in Raunaq Ali's case P L D 1973 SC 236 is that the Tribunal having restricted jurisdiction cannot sit in judgment over the adjudication of another Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction. Applying that law to the facts of this case, it will be clear that the order dated 25‑2‑1975 could not be challenged before the Rent Controller nor could the Rent Controller sit in judgment over it. On the basis of that order dated 25‑2‑1975, the respondent had to be taken as landlord of the petitioners and on that conclusion the order passed by the appellate authority was legal and proper.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to challenge the order dated 25‑2‑1975 and the object of this adjudication is not to prevent him from having recourse to legal remedies available to him against that order which has been held to be immune from challenge and interference before the Rent Controller.

6. Leave to appeal is refused. A.A./M‑1136/S Leave refused.