1983 PLP 2994 (CLC)

Date of hearing : 17th‑March, 1983. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑On 28th April, 1982 the Court directed issuance of notice to Advocate‑General in this case to appear and assist the Court on the limited question ; whether the Rent Controller could award cost of adjournment in proceedings under Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in view of the inapplicability of the provisions of C. P. C. The above point was considered by the Court of public importance and the petition was directed to be fixed for regular hearing within one month on 14th December, 1982. On Ist February, 1983 when this petition was listed for regular hearing the Advocate‑General requested for adjournment on the ground that his name did not appear in the cause list and he was also busy before the Supreme Court. The case was accordingly adjourned. Today neither the Advocate‑General has appeared in the case nor respondent No. 2 who has been notified the date of hearing. . We have accordingly heard only Mr. Hussain Shaikh, for the petitioner. The order which is impugned in this petition is dated 21st December, 1981. The Rent Controller by this order granted adjournment in the case subject to payment of cost of Rs.

50. The petitioner moved the Rent Controller. for review and recalling the said order and contended that such an order was not contemplated within the four corners of the Ordinance under which the Rent Controller was exercising jurisdiction. This contention of the learned counsel' was, however; not accepted by the Rent Controller and order granting cost was maintained. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and we agree with his contention that under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which is a special law, the Rent Controller is not empowered to award adjournment on cost in proceedings under the said Ordinance. Section 19 of the Ordinance prescribes the procedure to be followed before the Controller in pro ceedings arising under the Ordinance wgich is as follows :‑ "

19. Procedure.‑(1) Where an application other than the application under section 14 has been made to the Controller under this Ordinance, he shall, unless the application is summarily dismissed by him for reasons to be recorded, issue a notice to the respondent to file written reply, if any, within such period not exceeding fifteen days of the receipt of the notice. (2) Where on the day fixed in the notice for the respondent to file written reply, it is found that the notice has been served but the respondent has failed to file his reply without any reasonable excuse, the Controller may, proceed to make an ex parte order and after such order has been made the Controller shall have no power to rescind such order. (3) Where the respondent has filed the written reply, the Controller shall proceed to receive evidence first of the applicant and his witnesses. and then of the respondent and his witnesses. (4) A party to a case under this Ordinance shall prove the evidence of his witness by producing the affidavit of such witness a copy of which shall simultaneously be supplied to the other party and such other party shall have the right to cross‑examine the witness on such affidavit and if the witness has been cross examined the party producing the witness may re‑examine him. (5) The Controller shall, instead of formally framing issues arising between the parties, state them briefly in the judgment and shall record findings on each such issue separately." Similarly section 20 of the Ordinance provides that the Rent Controller and appellate authority while exercising power under the Ordinance shall have powers of a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of the following matters only :‑ (a) `summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath ; (b) compelling production or discovery of documents ; (c) issuing commission for examination of witnesses or documents." A reading of the above sections in the Ordinance will show that provision of C. P. C do not apply to the proceedings before the Controller except to the extent indicated in section 20 thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited before us the case of Dawood v. Abdul Ghani P L D 1980 Kax. 269 in which a learned. Single Judge of this Court (as he then was) after examining various provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance,, 1959, came to the conclusion that an appellate authority under the said Ordinance had no power to grant cost of adjournment and, therefore, the dismissal of an appeal on the ground of non‑payment of such cost was held to be an order without juris diction. The reasons given in the above cited case equally apply to the present case as. provision of C. P. C. has no application to proceedings before the Controller under the Ordinance. We accordingly hold that the order of Rent Controller granting cost of adjournment to respondent is an order without jurisdiction as it is not authorised by law. The writ petition is accordingly accepted and the order of Rent Controller dated 21st December, 1981 is declared as having been passed without any law ful authority and of no legal effect. As the respondent has not appeared and defended the petition there will be no order as to costs. Before parting with the case, we record our strong disapproval to the language used by the Rent Controller while distinguishing the case of Dawood v. Abdul Ghani cited before him. It shows complete ignorance of judicial parlance on his part. M. Y. M. Petition allowed,