1988 PLP 21 (CLC)

Syed Abbas Ali Shah etc. v. Syed Ferhat Ali Shah and another 1984 C L C 881 ref. Allah Yar etc. v. Additional District Judge etc. 1984 S C M R 741 rel. Hafiz S.A. Rehman for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 18th November, 1987. The appellant pruchased the house in dispute through registered sale deed dated 15‑12‑1984. The respondent was a tenant of the previous owner in the house in dispute. The appellant filed a petition for ejectment against the respondent in the Court of the learned Rent Controller, Rawalpindi Cantt. under the provisions of law contained in the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The respondent resisted the ejectment application on the ground that the previous owner had executed an agreement to sell the suit house in dispute in his favour on 18‑12‑1982 and he was in possession of the house in part performance of that contract. The respondent also took an objection that the ejectment application was not maintainable till the decision of the suit filed by him for specific performance of the said contract, This objection was accepted by the the learned Rent Controller, Rawalpindi Cantonment, vide order dated 2‑4‑1987 and he adjourned the ejectment proceedings sine die pending adjudication determination of the title by a Civil Court. The appellant has challenged this order in this appeal. I have perused the record and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 r0 des for an appeal against an order not being an interim order. Have question, therefore, has arisen whether the order adjournin f. the case sine die is an interim order or a final order. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that so far as the appellant is concerned the impugned order is a final order because the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller have virtually come to an end. He argues that the civil case may take several years in the final disposal especially when the respondent is a local practising Advocate and, therefore, there is no likelihood of the revival of the ejectment prodceedings. Factually he is correct. The life of a well‑contested civil suit, as the present one obviously will be, extends to many years. Therefore, the staying of proceedings of ejectment may virtually mean the stopping of the same for quite a long time of many years. However, still the ejectment proceedings cannot be taken to have come to an end. These can come to an end either by an order dismissing the ejectment application or by an order of ejectment of the respondent. Any order passed till the passing of the said two types of orders is an interim order within the meaning of section 24 ibid. So has been interpreted in Syed Abbas Ali Shah etc. v. Syed Fartat Ali Shah and another 1984 CLC

881. The writ petition in that case was not only entertained but was also accepted in somewhat similar circumstances but mainly on the ground that such an interim order was not appealable and, therefore, was open to challenge and interference in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, so far as the maintainability of the appeal is concerned the position is clear. It is an appeal against an interim order and in not maintainable under section 24 ibid. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Allah Yar, etc. v. Additional District Judge, etc. , 1984 SCMR

741. In that case the Lahore High Court had in some what similar circumstances held that when the question of specific performance of a contract, alleged to have been made in favour of a tenant, arises the proceedings for ejectment need not be stayed and the Rent Controller should decide the matter before him on the basis of the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. That decision was upheld in the said reported case by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. However, the decision of the High Court was not in an appeal against an interim order but was in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Therefore, while such an interim order can be challenged in the writ jurisdiction it cannot be challenged in appeal under section 24 ibid.

3. With this observation the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The appellant will be at liberty to seek any other legal remedy that may be available to him under any law. The parties to bear their own costs. A.A. /M‑467/L Appeal dismissed.