1997CLC50 (PLP)

Writ Petition No. 13843 of 1996, decided on 8th August 1996. ‑‑‑‑S. 13(6)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Contitutional petition against interlocutory order of Court‑‑‑Application for ejectment of tenant‑‑‑Rent Controller directed tenant to deposit alleged arrears of rent by specified date‑‑ Tenant instead of depositing rent challenged order of deposit by filing Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Constitutional petition against interlocutory order was not maintainable in the same manner as appeal was not maintainable against such order‑‑‑Where defence of tenant was struck off, he would have immediate remedy to prefer appeal which would be considered to be efficacious remedy ‑‑‑Pendency of Constitutional petition would be responsible for delay in administration of justice‑‑‑Constitutional petition being not maintainable against interlocutory order of Rent Controller, same was dismissed in circumstances. Rashid Ahmad v. Soofi Muhammad and another PLD 1977 Lah. 793; Muhammad Saeed v. Mst. Saratul Fatima and another PLD 1978 Lah. 1459 and Allah Ditta v. Additional District Judge and others 1996 MLD 403 ref. Ch. Muhammad Arshad for the Petitioner. Elegant Travels Private Limited (petitioner) is a tenant under Mrs. Nahid Ahmad Zaidi respondent No.

1. She filed a petition against the petitioner of this writ petition for his ejectment on the grounds of default, effecting the alteration without her permission and her bona fide personal requirement for her son Syed Adrian Ahmad. The ejectment petition has been resisted by the petitioner who has submitted the written reply wherein he has denied the aforesaid assertions. With respect to the tender of the rent the petitioner (tenant) has relied upon some receipts. Some of the receipts have not been admitted by Mrs. Nahid Ahmad Zaidi which have been referred to the Handwriting Expert. The tenant has been directed under section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 to deposit an amount of Rs.5,86,750 as arrears of rent till July, 1996 by 15‑8‑1996 (and obviously due to the reason that 14‑8‑,1996 is a gazetted holiday being the Independence Day). The petitioner was also directed on 11‑7‑1996 to deposit monthly rent at the rate of Rs.13,750 before the 15th of each month till the decision of the petition. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the assertion that he had tendered the rent and that the impugned order dated 11‑7‑1996 is illegal which is liable to be set aside.

2. I have heard the preliminary arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who mainly canvassed that the impugned order passed under section 13 (6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is illegal especially when without hearing the petitioner the receipts have been sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison and opinion. I posed the query, to the learned counsel for the petitioner about the maintainability of this writ petition who laid the emphasis that any illegal order of the Rent Controller can be challenged and assailed through the filing of a writ petition. I hold the different view and express that against the interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller the writ petition is not maintainable in the same manner the appeal is not maintainable against such an order. Legally in case the defence of the tenant is struck off he has the immediate remedy to prefer an appeal which would be considered to be an efficacious remedy. The pendency of the writ petition would be responsible for the delay to the administration of justice. It has been held to Rashid Ahmad v. Soofi Muhammad and another (PLD 1977 Lahore 793), Muhammad Saeed v. Mst. Saratul Fatima and another (PLD 1978 Lahore 1459) and Allah Ditta v. Additional District Judge and others (1996 MLD 403 (Lahore)) that against an order of Rent Controller under section 13 (6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 about the deposit of the rent the remedy of writ petition is not available. I have to express my view that if against an interlocutory order of the Rent Controller the appeal is not be maintainable the writ petition would sail in the same boat and the same would also not be maintainable. The wisdom and idea behind is to curb every effort of causing delay regarding the administration of justice. I, therefore, hold that this writ petition is not maintainable. In this view of the matter the merits of the petition cannot be looked into.

3. For what has been said above I dismiss this writ petition in limine. A.A./E‑2/L Petition dismissed.