2001 PLP 1045 (CLC)

Sheikh Zamir Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th February, 2001. This judgment will not only dispose of the instant F.A.O. but also the connected F. A. O. No. 16 of 1999.

2. Strangely enough, these are two appeals filed by the tenant as well as by the landlord under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Ordinance assailing an order, dated 7‑8‑1997 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Rawalpindi Cantonment, which reads as follows:‑‑

3. It was argued on behalf of the tenant that the appeal of the landlord was time‑barred having been filed after removal of office objections on 3‑2‑1999 against an order of the Additional Rent Controller, dated 7‑8‑1997, There is no cogent explanation to this and the appeal, therefore, cannot proceed as it is hit by limitation having been filed much beyond the period of 30 days prescribed by section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, XI of 1963.

4. The tenant's grievance was that the order of the Additional Rent Controller was hardly a speaking order. That it failed to give details about the failure on the part of the tenant in depositing the rent fixed by the Rent Controller under section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act. That the appellant had not been given any opportunity of explanation. The tenant placed reliance on the case of Irshad Hussain NLR 1981 UC 482 and the case of Syed Musharraf Raza 1983 CLC 2068 to state that a proper opportunity was not afforded to him for explaining the delay and its causes, if any,‑before striking off his defence.

5. While from the landlord side, it was argued that not only the order was not a speaking order, it had failed to decide the case in accordance with the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act by directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises on a fixed date. Rather the Rent Controller had abdicated his powers in favour of another forum for the eviction of the tenant on fulfilment of the conditions of payment of goodwill as is stated in the order itself. That under sections 9 and 10 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, premium goodwill was not permissible in law.

6. The order impugned patently, reflects that it is not written by the Additional Rent Controller, who had merely‑ and in a very casual way scribed his initials against his signatures in the shape of cross. This further reflects, that the Additional Rent Controller who has caused grievance to both sides, did not apply his mind to the facts of the case. The order impugned is not a speaking order. It does not show what possible explanation the tenant had offered in his defence which was struck off. What to speak of the confusion which the order has created with respect to the relief aspect.

7. A Rent Controller is a persona designata. He performs quasi‑judicial functions. But this does not absolve him from attending to a case whole heartedly and conscientiously. After all he performs an adjudicatory function where the adversaries look to him for justice in a more informal manner than which is used in the disposed of civil matters under the Civil Procedure Code: This necessarily calls for a judicial approach and for a finding reasonably correct. And while there is virtue in brevity but brevity to the extent it creates a mystery, is not taken as a virtue in judicial matters.

8. In this connection, this Court relies on the following case‑law:‑‑ (i) Iqbal Ahmad Naqi v. Qamar‑un‑Nisa 1989 CLC 1505; (ii) Mst. Amni Bi and another v. Hafiz Muhammad Taqi 1990 CLC (K) 984; (iii) Abdul Majeed v. Lutfi Siddiqi and 2 others 1987 CLC (K) 455; and (iv) Nasim Butt v. Mehmood‑ul‑Hassan 1992 CLC (L) 767.

9. This order is inferior in quality. It reflects rescission in intellectuality and hard work and shows a tendency on the part of the Presiding Officer of leaving the work of a serious nature to his subordinate staff. This has to be checked through the exercise of our visitorial jurisdiction.

10. The order impugned is, therefore, set aside and the case is remanded to the Additional Rent Controller with directions that after hearing the parties de novo and after applying his full mind and using his faculty of reasoning to write a fresh order. Which should not take much of his time keeping in view the fact that the file of the case is already replete with facts. Therefore, he shall decide the case afresh within six weeks from today while submitting a compliance report under his own signatures to the Deputy Registrar (J.) of this Court ensuring that it reaches this Court by the 1st of May, 2001. Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Rent Controller on the 12th of March, 2001, or they shall be summoned. O.M.H./M.A.K./J‑23/L Appeal allowed.