2020 PLP 561 (YLR)

NADEEM AKHTAR, J.

Through these appeals under Section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, ('the Act'), the appellant-company viz. Airport Hotel, Hotel Skyrooms (Pvt.) Limited, has impugned identical orders dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Controller of Rents, Faisal Cantonment, Karachi, in Rent Cases Nos. 02/2014, 03/2014, 04/2014, 05/2014, 06/2014, 07/2014 and 08/2014 filed by the appellant for eviction of the respondents / tenants on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal need. In addition to the above grounds, the ground of sub-letting was also pleaded by the appellant in Rent Cases Nos. 03/2014, 07/2014 and 08/2014. The above rent cases were filed in respect of Shops Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 4-A, 6 and 8 situated at the Airport Hotel, Star Gate Road, Karachi, ('demised premises'). Before the Rent Controller, the respondents / tenants filed their written statements as well as applications for dismissal of the rent cases on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties and as such the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the rent cases. Through the impugned orders, the rent cases were dismissed by the Rent Controller on the above ground with special costs of Rs.10,000.00 in each case against the appellant. As the facts and questions of law are common in all these appeals, the same are being disposed of through this common judgment.

2. The main questions involved in these appeals are (A) whether the Rent Controller was justified in dismissing the appellant's eviction applications in a summary manner on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties, without deciding such issue and without allowing the parties to lead evidence, especially when the appellant had pleaded in the eviction applications that there was previous litigation between the parties wherein the respondents had claimed themselves to be the tenants of the appellant and had deposited rent in Court; and, (B) in view of the inapplicability of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the proceedings before the Rent Controller, except to the extent specified in Section 27 of the Act, whether the Rent Controller had the power, authority or jurisdiction under the Act to impose special costs while dismissing the eviction applications.

3. Notice of these appeals was duly received by the respondent-Rent Controller as R&Ps of the rent cases were sent by him to this Court. Regarding the respondents / tenants, it was stated in his reports by the bailiff that they had shifted from the given addresses. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the said respondents are not available at the said addresses / demised premises as they had handed over possession thereof to the appellant long ago. He further states that due to this reason, the appellant is pressing these appeals only against that part of the impugned orders whereby special costs of Rs.10,000.00 were imposed by the Rent Controller in each case against the appellant while dismissing his eviction applications. He also states that the Rent Controller had refused to grant certified copies of the impugned orders to the appellant by stating that the same will not be granted unless the amount of costs was deposited by the appellant in all cases. It is urged that by doing so, the Rent Controller had actually compelled the appellant to deposit the impugned costs in order to obtain the certified copies for filing these appeals, and such conduct on his part was not only unreasonable and illegal, but it also amounted to extortion. It is further urged that the Rent Controller had no power under the Act to impose the impugned costs. In support of his above contention, he has relied upon Section 28 of the Act.

4. Perusal of Section 28 of the Act shows that the Rent Controller is empowered under the Act to impose fine only to the extent of Rupees five hundred, and that too only against a person who contravenes or fails to comply with any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. It may be noted that under Section 17 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, ('SRPO') where the Rent Controller is satisfied that any application made by a landlord for eviction of the tenant is frivolous or vexatious, he may direct that compensation not exceeding ten times the monthly rent be paid by such landlord to the tenant. The above Section empowers the Rent Controller to award only compensation, and not costs or special costs, in proceedings under SRPO. It may further be noted that there is no such provision in the Act, therefore, in proceedings under the Act the Rent Controller has no power, authority or jurisdiction at all even to award compensation ; and, the Rent Controller has limited power under Section 28 of the Act only to impose fine to the extent of Rupees five hundred in case of contravention and/or non-compliance of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder.

5. In the present cases, the eviction applications were dismissed by the Rent Controller by holding that the same were not maintainable as relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties did not exist. It was not a case where the appellant had contravened or had failed to comply with any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, even the fine under Section 28 ibid could not be imposed upon the appellant, let alone the amount of special costs. The impugned orders show that special costs were imposed by the Rent Controller by holding that the appellant had wasted time of the Court. I am of the clear view that the Rent Controller, being a persona designata governed by a special statute viz. the Act, had no power, authority or jurisdiction under the Act to impose special costs while dismissing the appellant's eviction applications even if they were not maintainable for the reason stated in the impugned orders. Thus, to the extent of imposition of special costs the impugned orders are coram non judice. My above view is supported by Ismail v. Rent Controller, Shahdadpur and another 1983 CLC 2994, wherein it was held by a learned Division Bench of this Court while deciding the question of imposition of costs by the Rent Controller in a rent matter under SRPO that provisions of C.P.C. do not apply to the proceedings before the Rent Controller except to the extent indicated in Section 20 of SRPO; under SRPO, which is a special law, the Rent Controller is not empowered to award costs in proceedings under SRPO ; and, such an order by the Rent Controller was without jurisdiction. Similar view was taken by this Court in Mrs. Chian Fong Wu v. Abubaker A. Chhaya 1990 CLC 1724, and also by the learned High Court in Muhammad Faryad v. Sultan Ahmed, Rent Controller, Lahore and another 1994 MLD

293. The above-cited cases are equally applicable to the instant cases as the provisions of Section 20 of SRPO and Section 27 of the Act are in pari materia.

6. As noted above, it has been stated that the appellant is not pressing these appeals against dismissal of its eviction applications as possession of the demised premises has already been handed over to it by the respondents / tenants. However, it may be observed that the appellant had specifically pleaded in its eviction applications that prior to the filing of the eviction applications, the respondents / tenants had filed Suits for injunction against the appellant claiming that they were the tenants of the appellant, and praying that they should not be dispossessed from the demised premises without due process of law ; and, the respondents / tenants, by claiming themselves to be the tenants of the appellant, had filed miscellaneous rent cases and had started depositing rent in Court in the said cases. In addition to the above, it was pleaded by the appellant in Rent Case No.02/2014 that previously Rent Case No.637/1986 was filed by the appellant against the opponent in the said rent case on the ground of default which was disposed of vide consent order dated 03.04.1989 in view of the compromise between the parties. A perusal of the said compromise application shows that the respondent / tenant in the said case had agreed to pay arrears of rent and future monthly rent to the appellant on the terms and conditions stated in the said compromise. Copies of the above mentioned miscellaneous rent cases filed by the respondents / tenants, compromise application filed by the parties in Rent Case No.637/1986 and consent order dated 03.04.1989 passed thereon, were also filed by the appellant along with its eviction applications before the Rent Controller. Despite all the above, it was held by the Rent Controller that he had no jurisdiction to decide the appellant's eviction applications as relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties did not exist; and, in view of such finding, impugned special costs were imposed in each case upon the appellant by holding that the appellant had wasted time of the Court. In view of the above, the findings of the Rent Controller were arbitrary and illegal as he was duty-bound under the law to decide the question / issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties if an objection to this effect had been raised by the respondents / tenants, and in case of decision of such question / issue in the affirmative, to decide the appellant's eviction applications on merits. Instead of exercising his jurisdiction, it was held by him that the appellant had wasted time of the Court and accordingly special costs were imposed in each case. In fact the Rent Controller had not only failed in exercising the jurisdiction vested in him by law, but had also failed in discharging his duty under the law.

7. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel that the appellant was compelled by the Rent Controller to deposit the amount of costs by stating that certified copies of the impugned orders will not be issued to the appellant unless the amount of costs is deposited in all cases, I have noticed that the impugned orders were passed on 18.12.2014 and the applications for their certified copies were filed by the appellant on 22.12.2014, but the copies were prepared and issued after four (04) weeks by the Rent Controller on 19.01.2015, that is, on the same day when the amount of costs was deposited by the appellant in all cases vide receipt No.07 issued by the Rent Controller. The above dates support the contention of the learned counsel. By denying the appellant the certified copies and by deliberately and intentionally delaying in granting the same, the Rent Controller had not only denied the appellant his valuable statutory right of appeal, but had also caused obstruction in the administration of justice. Such conduct on the part of the Rent Controller was certainly unbecoming of a judicial officer for which disciplinary action should have been initiated against him. Moreover, without deciding the issue regarding existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or otherwise and without allowing the parties to lead evidence on such issue, the summary dismissal of the appellant's eviction applications by the Rent Controller on the ground that such relationship did not exist between the parties, shows complete ignorance of law and judicial norms and procedure on his part.

8. In view of the above discussion, it is hereby held that the impugned orders are illegal and unsustainable to the extent of the summary dismissal of the appellant's eviction applications, and are coram non judice to the extent of imposition of special costs. The Rent Controller is directed to return the entire amount of costs to the appellant in all the above mentioned rent cases without fail within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this judgment and to report compliance to this Court through MIT-II within fifteen (15) days thereafter. Office is directed to issue notice to the respondent-Rent Controller Faisal Cantonment Karachi along with a copy of this judgment for its compliance in letter and spirit. These appeals are allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs. ZC/A-147/Sindh Appeals allowed.