1994 PLP 1749 (CLC)

Shamsuddin v. Soo6 Abdul Rehman PLD 1961 (W.P.) BJ 88; Amanullah v. Civil Judge, Lahore and others 1982 CLC 535; Syed Intesar Ali v. Ahmed Din Khan and another 1983 CLC 998; Javed Iqbal and another v. District Judge, Jhang and 2 others PLD 1987 Lah. 9; Bashir Ahmad Khan v. Malik Mehdi Khan and another 1987 4CLC 1620; Muhammad Akram v. Muhammad Zar and others 1987 SCMR 1788; A.M. Qureshi v. Government of Sindh and others 1991 SCMR 1103; Messrs Rana Motors Ltd. v. Sheikh' Razi ud‑Din and 2 others 1983 CLC' 3987; Muhammad Ramzan v. Rent Controller (VIII), Karachi and another 1985 CI.C 553; Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Aslam 1986 MLD 663;: Humayun ‑W. Malik v. The District Judge, South Karachi and 2 others 1986 MLD 1781; Mst. Haleema Sultana v. The Rent Controller and another 1986 MLD 2018 and Muslim Raza v. Mst. Saghira Bano 1987 MLD 3269 ref. , . Mustafa Lakhani for Petitioner. MA. Isani for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th November, 1993, The petitioner is aggrieved by the tentative order dated 15‑9‑1993 passed by the learned Additional Controller of Rents, Clifton Cantonment, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.6,500 per month and the rent for the subsequent months at the same rate before the 5th day of each English calendar month. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the basis that a preliminary issue in respect of the dispute in regard to existence of landlord and tenantship was already framed by the learned Controller on 3‑3‑1993, and the parties were directed to lead evidence on that issue. In the meanwhile respondent No.2 filed an application to the effect that the petitioner may be directed to deposit arrears of rent and the future monthly rent under the provisions of section 17(b) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act. The petitioner filed objections. However the learned Rent Controller passed the impugned order without first deciding the issue in respect of the existence of landlord and tenantship between the parties. The learned Controller ‑ while passing the impugned order mainly placed reliance on a judgment reported as PLD 1961(W.P.) Baghdad‑ul‑Jadid 88 (Shamsuddin v. Soofi Abdul Rehman) whereby it is held that mere denial of relationship of landlord and tenant does not oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to order the deposit of the arrears of the rent and the rent for the subsequent months. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently argued that the present petition is directed against an interlocutory order as such the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court could not be invoked. Reliance is placed on 1982 CLC 535 (Amanullah v. Civil Judge, Lahore and others), 1983 CLC 998 (Syed Intesar Ali v. Ahmad Din Khan and another), PLD 1987 Lahore-9 (Jived lqbal and another v. District Judge, Jhang and 2 others) and 1987 CLC 1620 (Bashir Ahmed Khan v. Malik Mehdi Khan and another). The ratio of the said authorities is to the effect that ordinarily writ jurisdiction is not attracted in respect of an interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller. But there are also authorities to the effect that such interlocutory orders attract the Constitutional jurisdiction if injustice has been done to either of the parties, are the same has been passed without jurisdiction. Obviously a Rent Controller attains jurisdiction if the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. If no such relationship exists, then the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to proceed further and to pass an interlocutory order for the deposit of arrears of rent and the future monthly rent. If a ,dispute exists between the .parties in relation to the existence of landlord and tenantship, the Rent Controller cannot proceed further unless that dispute is resolved by him. Reference can be made to 1987 SCMR 1788 (Muhammad Akram v. Muhammad Zar and others), 1991 SCMR 1103 (A.M. Qureshi v. Government of Sindh and others), 1983 CLC 1987 (Messrs Rana Motors Ltd. v. Sheikh Razi‑ud‑Din and 2 others), 1985 CLC 553 (Muhammad Ramzan v. Rent Controller (VIII), Karachi and another), 1986 MLD 663 .(Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Aslam), 1986 MLD 1781 (Humayun W. Malik v. The District Judge, South Karachi and 2 others), 1986 MLD 2018 (Mst. Haleema Sultana v. The Rent Controller and another) and 1987 MLD 3269 (Muslim Raza v. Mst. Saghira Bano). In the present case since the issue in regard to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant was already framed by the learned Rent Controller, hence he was not justified to proceed further and pass A the interlocutory order without first deciding the aforesaid dispute. Accordingly the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court of the learned Rent Controller to first decide the preliminary issue in regard to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant after giving full opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence, thereafter the Rent Controller can proceed further in the light of the decision of that issue. H.B.T./I‑244/K Petition allowed.