1999 PLP 1704 (YLR)

This Constitutional petition by the tenant is directed against interim order, dated 28‑5‑1994 passed by the learned Rent Controller.

2. The dispute in this petition is in respect of a shop. Mst. Khurshid Bibi, respondent No.2, herein filed ejectment petition against the petitioner on 29‑1‑1994 on the ground of default in payment of rent from May, 1993, personal need and re‑construction of the property. During the proceedings, Mst. Ghulam Tassawar filed an application before the learned Rent Controller for being impleaded to the ejectment petition, who were impleaded as party to the ejectment petition by the learned Rent Controller on the ground that in the pending civil litigation the title of the shop is in dispute between Khurshid Bibi and Mst. Ghulam Tassawar etc. Accordingly, vide order, dated 28‑5 1994 they were ordered to be impleaded to the ejectment petition. The petitioner was also directed to deposit Rs.800 per mensum as rent from the date of filing of the ejectment petition. The said order is the subject‑matter of the present writ petition.

3. The ejectment petition is being contested by the petitioner who has denied relationship of landlord‑tenant between him and respondent No.2.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without determining the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parries, the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to pass order under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. Reliance was placed on Syed Abbas Ali Shah and another v. Syed Farhat Ali Shah and another (1984 CLC 881). According to him, even an interim order which is patently without jurisdiction can be questioned through a Constitutional petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord submits that such an interim order in rent matters is not liable to interference in Constitutional jurisdiction because it can be challenged in an appeal against the final order passed by the learned Rent Controller. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Saeed v. Mst. Saratul Fatima and another (PLD 1978 Lah. 1459).

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The judgment Syed Abbas Ali Shah (supra) is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case because in the said case the learned Rent Controller, instead of directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent, directed the tenant to furnish security. This interim order was interfered with in the Constitutional jurisdiction. The case is fully covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Saeed wherein the learned Rent Controller had directed the tenant to deposit arrears of rent and future rent during the pendency of the ejectment petition without determining the question of relationship of landlord and tenant. The writ petition was dismissed. On appeal a learned Division Bench of this Court maintained the order of dismissal of the writ petition.

7. For the abovementioned reasons, I am not inclined to interfere. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1074/L Petition dismissed.