2004 PLP 2241 (YLR)

SHAHZAD AKEIAR KHAN, J.-By way of this Constitutional petition the orders dated 9-4-2003 and 18-11-2003 respectively passed by the learned Rent Controller, Mansehra, and the learned Additional District Judge, Mansehra, have been called in question by Mst. Maroof Sultan.

2. The short facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that one Abdul Rehman, the husband of the petitioner, was granted land measuring 550 S.ft on lease by the then Deputy Commissioner in the year 1984. The land is situated in the Katchery area of Mansehra. Initially the rate of rent was fixed as 00.50 paisas per S.ft. and the total amount of the leased area was Rs.275 per month. Subsequently, gradual increase was made in the rent rate of leased area and the ultimate increase was to the tune of Rs.3 per S.ft. Such ultimate increase was made in the meeting held on 23-2-1997 which, inter alia, was attended by Mr. Aurangzeb, the representative of the petitioner. It may be noted that the instant petition is also filed under the sworn affidavit of the said Aurangzeb. The petitioner being widow of the erstwhile lease-holder filed an application before the learned Rent Controller, Mansehra, for the fixation of fair rent as she appears to be aggrieved of the increase that was made on 23-2-1997.

3. Such application was resisted by the respondent and the learned Rent Controller after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the application of the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court also could earn no success for her.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the increase in the rate of rent was arbitrary and was made at the back of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not bound by such a decision made by the respondent.

5. On the other hand, the learned D.A.-G. has supported the impugned judgments of the two Courts below.

6. We have heard the rival arguments of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the record. However, we have noticed a legal feature of this case emerging out of a notification dated 16-3-1959. The said notification being crucially relevant to the disposal of the instant controversy is reproduced below:- "West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. No.HG-10-2/59, 12th March, 1959, (Gazette Extraordinary, 16th March 1959).

In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction .Ordinance, 1959, the Governor of the West Pakistan is pleased to direct that the provisions of the said Ordinance shall not apply to buildings and rented land vested in the Central or Provincial Government."

7. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit premises is the property of the Provincial Government and not of any local body. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in de, light of the aforesaid notification. A plain reading of the said notification indiums that the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is not applicable to the land which is the Subject-matter of the instant writ petition. The efficacy of the said notification could not be questioned on any standard before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Resultantly, we hold that the suit property being not covered by the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance .as beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller and the very application that war filed by the petitioner before the rent Controller was not entertainable.

8. Resultantly, this writ petition on this legal score, is dismissed. H.B.T./138/P Petition dismissed.