P L D 2012 Lahore 490 (PLP)

IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.

Pre-admission notices were issued to respondents Nos. 1 to 6, however after hearing learned counsel for respondents, I considered it appropriate to decide the case on merits and as such the case is admitted to regular hearing. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.l to 6 is present and accepts notice on behalf of said respondents.

2. Since short point is involved, learned counsel for parties request for hearing of the case today. So be it.

3. An ejectment petition was filed on 20-6-2007 under the provisions of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The learned Rent Controller took cognizance of the matter and both the parties surrendered to its jurisdiction.

4. The premises in question being located in some commercial area, the parties simultaneously referred their some matter to the association of the businessmen for resolution and according to the record, the Arbitrators on 7-10-1997 announced their award which was brought to the, notice of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Lahore by the writ petitioner under the provisions of sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

5. Although, both the proceedings were pending in two different forums viz. the ejectment proceedings before the learned Rent Controller whereas the petition under Arbitration Act before the learned Civil Judge. But incidentally, both the said offices were being kept by one Presiding Officer exercising two different jurisdictions.

6. The petitioner moved the learned Rent Controller for consolidation of both the matters viz. the ejectment petition and the proceedings under Arbitration Act, which request after contest was refused by the learned Rent Controller on 3-12-2010. The order so passed by the learned Rent Controller was challenged through the present writ petition which was originally taken up for hearing on 3-2-2011, when not only pre-admission notice was issued but the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller were ordered to be remained stayed. As a result whereof, the proceedings in ejectment petition were held in abeyance where- only the final arguments were to be advanced by both the parties, in comparison whereof the arbitration proceedings were at initial stages.

7. The learned counsel for petitioner, with the help of a case titled Ijaz Hussain Shah and 12 others v. Ghulam Akbar Shah (2000 YLR 1207), has argued that both the proceedings could have been consolidated as the matter in such proceedings was in between the same parties. In the referred case the landlord after consolidation had accepted the jurisdiction of trial court with regard to both the matters and therefore, it was held that he was estopped to resile from such situation when the case had been finally decided against him.

8. The learned counsel for respondent, by placing reliance upon the cases of Pakistan through General Manager, FAFI, Lahore versus 'Messrs Agro Marketing Corporation Ltd. And 2 others (1981 CLC 443) and Manzoor Ahmad v. Messrs FACTO (Pakistan) Ltd. And others (1996 MLD 265) has supported the impugned order whereby the consolidation was refused by the learned Rent Controller.

9. Having heard, the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record. I am of the view that the learned Rent Controller has rightly refused the consolidation of two proceedings one under Rent Laws and the other under the Arbitration Act. As indicated above, in ejectment petition, evidence of both the sides was concluded and it was fixed for final arguments when the proceedings were ordered to be stayed by this Court in the present writ petition whereas the petition moved under Arbitration Act, 1940 was at initial stages. In case of Pakistan through General Manager, FAFI, Lahore (supra), even with regard to the consolidation of two civil suits this Court taken note of two different stages of the proceedings in the suits and it was held that consolidation of suits, may justifiably be asked for before commencement of trial of suits sought to be got consolidated, or where common evidence given in such suits but where such stage has passed, the prayer for consolidation was held not practicable.

10. The proceedings under Arbitration Act, 1940 are to be taken up by Civil Court while ejectment petition is to be decided by the Rent Controller a persona designata under the provisions of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. These two jurisdictions are entirely different. Pleadings, issues, evidence, and other material in both the matters being different ought to be decided independently and separately.

11. In our judicial system, a Civil Judge has been assigned different jurisdictions e.g. the power of Rent Controller under the Rent Laws, to act as a Family Judge under the Family Laws, to act as Guardian Judge under the Guardians, and Wards Act, to exercise powers as Magistrate under the provisions of Cr.P.C. etc. but that does not mean that while he is exercising different jurisdictions, all the proceedings before him can t be amalgamated. In the case in hand, although the Presiding Officer was the same who was acting as Rent Controller, as also the Civil Judge but in one he is a persona designata and exercising quasi judicial jurisdiction whereas with regard to other one he was acting as a Civil Judge under the Code of Civil Procedure. Neither two jurisdictions nor the proceedings under two entirely different laws can be consolidated or amalgamated. In this case by now the tenant is succeeded in avoiding the verdict of Rent Controller in ejectment petition on a plea of consolidation of the proceedings of such ejectment petition with that of an arbitration proceeding which is not permissible and practicable under the law.

12. No illegality or jurisdictional defect can be established in the impugned order and resultantly, the same is up held. The petition having no force is dismissed.

13. The ejectment petition was filed in the year 2007 and this is 5th year of pendency of the same in the original forum. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 6-6-2012 and the learned Rent Controller will proceed with the matter in a manner that it will be finally decided before 30th of June, 2012 positively under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. K.M.Z./M-225/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.