1982 PLP 1777 (CLC)

(1) Whether the respondent has committed default in payment of rent? (2) Whether the petitioner requires the disputed premises for his personal use in good faith ? (3) Relief.

3. The appellant's evidence was partly recorded and the case was adjourned to 14th February, 1979 for the remaining evidence of the appel lant and that of the respondent. On that day, pursuant to the statement made by the parties before the Controller, he referred the dispute for arbitration to Ehsan‑ul‑Haq, Ghulam Mustafa and Abdur Rashid, who were proposed as arbitrators by the parties.

4. The arbitrators filed their award on 7th March, 1979 to the effect that the shop in question was in perfect condition and did not require reconstruction and that the rent of the shop henceforth should be Rs. 175 p. m. instead of Rs. 80.

5. The appellant filed objections against the award. He also filed an application under section 5 of the Arbitration Act withdrawing from the award. The learned Controller, however, vide his order dated 16th April, 1979 rejected the objections and application under section 5 of the Arbitration Act filed by the appellant. He made the award as rule of the Court and resultantly dismissed the ejectment application of the appel lant and directed that the respondent would pay rent @ Rs. 175 p. m. with effect from March, 1979.

6. The appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, who dismissed the same on 11th July, 1979.

7. The present Second Appeal against the orders of the Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge, has been filed mainly on the ground that the Controller had no jurisdiction to refer the dispute to arbitrators.

8. Under the provisions of the. West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, eviction of a tenant can be ordered under section 13, ibid on any of the grounds mentioned therein. The procedure of filing an application, the enquiry to be conducted in the matter by the Controller and the consequential order to be made by him is provided therein.

9. A Controller exercising jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is a persona designata and not a Court as such. As a matter of fact, the Controller has to make such enquiry as deemed necessary by him for his satisfaction that if the ground or grounds on which eviction of the tenant is sought does/do exist. Thus within such limited scope of enquiry reference to arbitration is obviously not contemplated. Moreover, the Controller being not the civil Court has no jurisdiction to receive an award from the arbitrator and to make the same as rule of the Court. It, therefore, follows that the provisions of the Ordinance as a whole are clearly intended to exclude the reference of disputes between the landlord and tenant for their settlement to arbitration. In such circumstances, an order passed on arbitration award made by a Controller is without jurisdiction and a nullity.

10. It is urged on behalf of the respondent that the appellant himself made a statement before the Controller for appointment of arbitrators and, therefore, he was estopped to question the reference of dispute to arbitra tors. This is an established proposition of law that there is no estoppel against a statute.

11. In the light of what has been said above, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders passed by the Rent Controller as well as the lower appellate authority and remand the case to the Controller for deciding it afresh on merits in accordance with law. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. K.M.A. Appeal accepted.