2012 PLP 1613 (MLD)

SHAHID WAHEED, J.

Petitioner, Nazir Ahmad, through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has called in question the order dated 26-6-2012 passed by learned Special Judge (Rent), Gojra, Distt. Toba Tek Singh, whereby the petitioner's application for framing of additional issue has been dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed an application for the eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises before the learned Special Judge (Rent), Gojra Distt. Toba Tek Singh/respondent No.4. In response to notice, the petitioner appeared before the learned Special Judge (Rent) and moved an application under Section 22 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 for leave to contest the petition. Learned Special Judge (Rent) vide order dated 19-7-2011 granted leave to contest; framed issues; and, called upon the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective claims. Subsequently, on 21-6-2012, the petitioner moved an application for framing of additional issue as the petitioner claimed that through an agreement he purchased the rented premises from the father of the respondents Nos.1 to 3 and occupying the same as owner. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 resisted this application by filing a contesting reply. Learned Special Judge (Rent) vide order dated 26-6-2012, dismissed the application. Hence, this petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. At the outset of the arguments I called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to make submissions regarding the maintainability of this petition which has been moved against an interlocutory order dated 26-6-2012 passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent) whereby petitioner's application for framing of additional issue has been dismissed. In reply thereto, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has no remedy except to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this court. I am afraid this contention has no force. According to section 28 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 no appeal is competent against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Tribunal. It is well settled principle of law that when a statute does not provide an appeal against an interlocutory order then the same cannot be challenged by way of constitutional petition as allowing such an order to be impugned by way of constitutional petition would amount to negating the provisions of statute which does not provide for an appeal against an interlocutory order. In this regard reference may be made to Syed Saghir Ali Naqvi v. Province of Sindh and others (1996 SCMR 1165) and Muhammad Iftikhar Mohmand v. Javed Muhammad and 3 others (1998 SCMR 328). The Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 has been promulgated so as to regulate the relationship of landlord and tenant expeditiously and to provide a mechanism for settlement of disputes inter se in an expeditious and cost effective manner. If interlocutory orders regarding framing of additional issues, summoning of witnesses and closing of evidence are challenged in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court then it would delay the adjudication of disputes between landlord and tenant and would, therefore, result in defeating the object for which the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 was promulgated.

5. In view of above, the instant petition is not maintainable and the petitioner shall have to wait till a final order is passed and then to attack it in the proper exclusive forum created for the purpose for examining such orders. I am, therefore, not inclined to exercise constitutional jurisdiction in a manner by which object of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 is defeated and the same is rendered nugatory.

6. This writ petition being not maintainable is dismissed in limine. MH/N-49/L Petition dismissed.