2014 PLP 1786 (YLR)

SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.

Through the instant constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner, namely, Mst. Saadia Tabbasum, has called in question the propriety and legality of the order dated 13-9-2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller/Civil Judge-II D.I. Khan, whereby the monthly rent of Shop No-9 situated at new Bannu Chungi D.I.Khan was determined at Rs. 2,000 to be deposited by the respondent No-1 with the Civil Nazir.

2. Facts of the case giving rise to this petition in brief are that the petitioner instituted a rent petition under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance against Malik Murtaza, respondent No.1, being defaulter and during its pendency, one Mst. Safia Bibi and Muhammad Farooq filed an application for their impleadment which was not allowed. However, on appeal, the learned Additional District Judge-VI D.I.Khan, vide judgment dated 21-6-2011 stayed the proceedings till the decision of the civil suit mentioned in the said order and directed the respondent No-1/tenant to deposit the monthly rent as may be determined by the Rent Controller, who passed the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order is against law, rules, record and in total disregard/conflict of the settled principles of justice. He argued that the learned Rent Controller has wrongly determined the monthly rent of the suit shop at Rs. 2000, because it is situated in a very charming place for carrying of business and its monthly rent is more than Rs. 5000. He submitted that the learned Rent Controller has wrongly relied the rent deeds of the alleged adjacent shops and has fallen into an error because each place has its own potential value.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order on almost the same grounds enumerated therein.

5. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the record reveals that the impugned order is based on correct legal footings and needs no interference, because the title of the shop in question is yet to be determined and the rent deeds of the adjacent shops support that the rent of the suit shop as determined through the impugned order is in consonance with the market rates.

6. Moreover, the issue in hand relates to the facts of the case which requires recording of pro and contra evidence of the parties and cannot be determined by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. Besides, the impugned order being interim in nature having been passed on an interlocutory application is not open to be challenged through a writ petition as held in the case of Muhammad Saeed Shah v. Mst. Philpana and another reported as 2012 MLD 783.

7. For the reasons stated above, this petition being meritless is hereby dismissed along with its C.M. No. 678 of 2011. JJK/209/P Petition dismissed.