1993 PLP 649 (CLC)

M.R. Jan for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 14th October, 1992. In this Constitutional petition, Javaid Hussain Sheikh who is a tenant of a shop out of Property No.l/122, Kutcha Loharan, Insider Mochi Gate, Lahore under Mst. Fehmida Qaisar respondent No. 1 and against whom an ejectment petition is being adjudicated upon in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Lahore, has challenged an interim order dated 19‑11‑1991 passed under section 13 (6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance wherein the learned Rent Controller has passed an order for payment of future rent at the rate of Rs.600 P.M.

2. Mr. M.R. Jan, Advocate counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is arbitrary and amounts to final determination of the amount of rent due against the petitioner, under the provisions of section 13 (6), Part II. This order could only be passed subject to the final determination of the. amount of rent due. Learned counsel hat been asked to explain as to how this writ petition is competent against an interim order passed by the learned Rent Controller which is not even appealable and why this writ petition is being filed after delay of almost one year from the date of passing of the order. Regarding first query, learned counsel has stated that as the impugned order is illegal, therefore, the writ petition is competent. He has relied upon a case Mistri Allah Din v. Mst. Kaneez Begum PLD 1961 Lah.

410. Regarding the question of laches, the learned counsel is not in a position to furnish any explanation as to why the order has not been challenged earlier. 3. 1 have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. It is purely an order of a tentative nature passed by the learned Rent Controller in accord with the provisions of section 13 (6) of the Ordinance. The learned Rent Controller shall have to finally determine rate of rent and the actual amount due and for that purpose issue No.l which is to the following effect, has already been framed: "What is the actual rate of rent and with what effect on parties?" As in the writ petition an interim order of a tentative nature has been challenged writ petition is liable to be dismissal in the light of the law laid down in case of Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain (PLD 1975 SC 457) and case of 1991 SCMR 2355, Pakistan v. Special Court (Banking). Fragmentary decisions cannot be allowed to be challenged through Constitutional petitions inasmuch as entertainment of Constitutional petition against such like orders causes lot of inconvenience to the parties and tends to delay administration of justice. The writ petition is also barred by the principles of lashes. The petitioner has failed to explain as to why an order passed a year earlier is being challenged through this Constitutional petition after such an inordinate delay. Resultantly I see no force in this writ petition and the same is therefore dismissed in limine. H.B.T./J‑44/L Petition dismissed.