2007 PLP 1967 (YLR)

AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.

Through this petition the petitioner has impugned the order dated 5-7-2006 of the Additional Controller of Rents, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi, passed on an application made by the respondent No.2 under section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 praying therein to "direct the petitioner to deposit the rent from March, 2005 to August, 2005 and in future at a rate of Rs.40,000 per month and also for future with increase of 10% with effect from October, 2004, per year before the Rent Controller". The application under section 17(8) was made in the Rent Case which was filed by the respondent No.2, inter alia, on the ground of default and subletting.

2. The learned Additional Controller of Rents, after hearing the parties has passed the impugned order, in which he took notice of the Rent Agreement entered into between the parties on 1-12-2002. It may be observed that this Rent Agreement is not disputed by either party. Under the terms of the Rent Agreement, the rent was agreed at the rate of Rs.35,000 per month. This Rent agreement was for 11 months and under clause 2 of the said agreement it was provided that on expiry of said Rent Agreement the tenancy may be renewed with mutual consent of both parties for further period (s) with 10% increase in the rent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Rent Agreement expired after 11 months and since he did not consent to increase in the rent, he is not bound by this clause of the Agreement. The Additional Controller of Rents, apparently, has passed a tentative order, which is impugned in these proceedings and his impugned order has calculated the rent on the basis of clause (2) of the Rent Agreement. I. do not want to express myself nor I want to construe this clause of the agreement at this point of time as the matter is pending before the Additional Controller of Rents and the parties are yet to lead evidence.

3. I have gone through the impugned order and the main rent application. In paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the main rent application it has been explained as to how the alleged default has been committed by the petitioner. The learned Additional Controller of Rents while construing clause (2) of the Agreement coupled with the allegations pleaded in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the main rent application under section 17 of the Cantomnents Rent Restriction Act, 1963, `has passed the impugned order, which is tentative in nature. The impugned order cannot be treated as an order passed under section 7 of the Act of 1963, which provision relates to the fixation of fair rent. The Additional Controller of Rents has not fixed the rent but has tentatively ordered deposit of rent in terms of the Rent Agreement execution of which has not been disputed by the petitioner and I do not find any error in the order.

4. Moreover, no writ lies against an interlocutory order. The learned Additional Controller of Rents has passed the order on an interlocutory application, which is yet to be finalized. The petitioner shall deposit the rent in terms of the impugned order of the Additional Controller of Rents. I am informed that an issue in regard to rate of rent has already been framed. The Additional Controller of Rents shall give finding on the said issue after recording the evidence of the parties but in the intervening period the impugned order of the Controller of Rents shall hold field. This petition is dismissed in limine along with the listed application. M.B.A./S-30/K Petition dismissed.