1983 PLP 1234 (CLC)

The present appeal under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance of 1959 has been filed by Muhammad Shafi, the tenant in respect of a shop located on Zaibunnisa Street Saddar, Karachi, to challenge an order of eviction passed against him by the IIIrd Rent Controller, Karachi, on an application under section 13(6) of the said Ordinance at the instance of the respondent landlord Mst. Zohra Kbatoon. Such order of eviction was challenged by an appeal which was heard by the V Additional District Judge, Karachi and dismissed summarily.

2. I have heard Mr. Suleman Kassam for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haq for the respondent.

3. The preliminary point that has been urged by Mr. Suleman Kassam is that an appeal under section 15(3) of the Ordinance could not be dis missed summarily. He has relied upon the language employed in subsection (3) of section 15 of the Ordinance which makes the calling of the record and hearing of the parties imperative before disposal of the appeal. The learned Advocate has invited my attention to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Begum Humayun Zulfiqar Ismail and another v. Begum Hamida Saadat Ali (1968 S C M R 828). At page 832 of the said report the Supreme Court has clearly taken the view that while second appeals under subsection (4) of section 15 of the Ordinance are to be regulated in the same manner as the regular second appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure. The said Code, how ever, does not apply to appeals filed against the orders of the Controller under subsection (3) of section 15 of the Ordinance. The language employed by the Supreme Court is so clear that it cannot admit of two interpretations. My attention has also been invited to the case of Abid Hussai v. Mst. Afsar Jehan Begum and another (PLD1973SC1) and the observations of the Lordships of the Supreme Court could usefully be employed for reinforcing the earlier decision in the case of Begum Humaynn.

4. In the circumstances stated above both Mr. Suleman Kassam and Mr. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haq have sought a consent order to the follow ing effect: ‑ "This second appeal filed by Muhammad Shafi be allowed with n orders as to costs. The appeal filed by Muhammad Shafi against Mst. Zohra Khatoon namely Rent Appeal No. 337 of 1978 shall b deemed to be pending before the Additional District Judge and ma now be heard in the same manner as if it had been freshly filed." 3. 1 agree with the consent order that is proposed by the Advocates on either side and as a consequence the judgment of the V Additional District Judge which is impugned before me is hereby set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant shall be heard again by the same Additional District Judge (if he is still posted at Karachi) or the District Judge or an other Additional District Judge at an early date. At the joint request of Advo cates on either side I direct that the parties or their Advocates as the case may be shall appear before the V Additional District Judge on 15th March, 1979. The Judge, who deals with this case, is directed to dispose of the appeal within two months from 15th March, 1979 and communicate comp liance to the Registrar of this Court. M. Y. M. Appeal allowed.