1992 PLP 1848 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional diction, exercise of‑‑‑Rent Controller's order closing tenant's evidence due jurisdiction, to his failure to produce same despite several adjournments and repeated warnings‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Order in question, having been passed in proceedings competently pending before Rent controller, discretion exercised by him did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction‑‑‑Question of propriety of order in question could be urged as and when matter was taken up before Appellate Court, in case ultimate order to be passed by Rent Controller was against tenant‑‑‑No case for interference in exercise of extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction having been made out, same was dismissed in circumstances. Hakam Qureshi for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 20th November, 1991 This Constitution petition is directed against the order dated 9‑10‑1991 of the learned Rent Controller, whereby the application to recall the order dated 21‑7‑1991 was rejected. These orders have been passed by the learned Rent Controller in eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner/tenant. The learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 21‑7‑1991, had closed the evidence of the petitioner/tenant providing, however, an opportunity to the petitioner to have his statement recorded on the next dated of hearing i.e. 27‑7‑1991. Learned Rent Controller in this very order observed that a perusal of the file shows that the respondent/landlord had closed his evidence on 29‑7‑1990 and since then the petitioner/tenant has not concluded his evidence despite administration of warning.

2. Learned counsel has taken me through the order sheet. A perusal of the same shows that many dates were fixed since 29‑7‑1990 for production of evidence by the petitioner/tenant, on which the petitioner had produced five witnesses. Learned counsel states that still the petitioner has to produce more evidence and for that the learned Rent Controller should have granted at least one opportunity to produce the evidence on the date when the statement of the petitioner was to be recorded. Learned counsel added that if this opportunity is granted now, the petitioner would produce rest of his evidence at his own responsibility.

3. The orders impugned in this petition were admittedly passed in the proceedings competently pending before the learned Rent Controller. The discretion exercised in the matter does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. The question of propriety of the impugned orders can be urged, when the matter is taken up by the petitioner before the appellate Court, in case ultimate order to be passed by the Rent Controller goes against him. At this stage, no case for interference in exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction is made out. The petition is dismissed in limine. A.A./G‑54/L Petition dismissed,