1973 PLP 143 (SCMR)

Date of hearing : 19th February 1973. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This is a petition for the review of a judgment of this Court delivered on the 19th of October 1970, whereby Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑88 of 1970 was dismissed. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has urged that in rejecting the interpretation sought to be placed by the learned counsel on the provisions of subsection (2) (i) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (Second Amendment) Amending Ordinance No. XXII of 1966, which provided, inter alia, that sub‑clause (i) of clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 3 of the Ordinance of 1962 "shall be omitted and shall be deemed always to have been so omitted", this Court had omitted to notice the provisions of section 13, subsection (1) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. This sub section reads as follows:‑‑ "Section

13. Eviction of tenant.‑‑(1) A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, or otherwise, and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with provisions of the section." Upon the basis of this subsection, it is urged that since this subsection even rendered unexecutable a decree passed by a Court, the question of a vacuum arising, as held by this Court in its order now sought to be reviewed, did not arise. We are not impressed by this contention, because, it really amounts to challenging the correctness Of the view taken by this Court in the order now sought to be reviewed, arid this cannot,, be a ground for review. The Court gave a considered opinion with regard to the interpretation of the relevant clauses of the provisions of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and the two subsequent amending Ordinances of 1962 and 1966 and repelled the contention that the words ‑"shall be Omitted and shall be deemed always to have been so omitted" had the effect of rendering all proceedings then pending before the Rent Controller of Karachi mfructuous. Section 13(1), now relied upon does not deal with pending proceedings. There are other specific provisions in that behalf which have been considered by the Court. The result canvassed by learned counsel, we are still of the view, was not intended by the amending law of 1966, for, the new subsection (3) which was added by the Ordinance of 1966 had, in any event, the effect of validating all proceedings taken by the previous Controller under the provisions of the Ordinance of 1962, as if they were proceedings or decisions, as the case may be, of a Controller under the Ordinance of 1959 as amended by the Ordinance of 1966. In either view of the matter, therefore, we see no necessity for reviewing our previous order. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.