1979 PLP 208 (CLC)
FARDAUS KAUSAR-Petitioner Versus SUBAH SADIQ-Respondent.
| Citation | 1979 PLP 208 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FARDAUS KAUSAR-Petitioner Versus SUBAH SADIQ-Respondent. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 208 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 208 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 208 (CLC) (FARDAUS KAUSAR-Petitioner Versus SUBAH SADIQ-Respondent.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Zafar Yasin for Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application filed under section 15-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and Article 203 of the Constitution, seeking transfer -f an ejectment proceeding from one Rent Controller to another. The petitioner had earlier moved the District Judge in the matter but his application was dismissed on 5-4-1979.
2. Section 15-A of the Ordinance does not empower the High Court to transfer a matter from one Controller to another. That power is available only, to the Appellate Authority. The High Court has been empowered to withdraw only an appeal pending with an Appellate Authority. Learned counsel, how ever, relying on Mst. Gaman v. Taj Din (P 1, D 1968 Lab. 987) and Mst. Safia Begum v. Abdul Hamid (P L D 1968 Lab. 1358) urged that this Court has power under Article 203 to allow the transfer. By Article 203, the High Court is empowered to "supervise and control all Courts subordinate to it". This power had been invoked in the aforesaid authorities for transfer of suits under the Family Courts Act because at that time section 25-A of the Act did not exist and as such there was no power anywhere available for effecting a transfer. The power was invoked upon the view that the family Court was not a persona designata but was a Court of law within the meaning of then Article 102 of the Constitution. The Controller, however, is not a Court and as such the provision of the Article cannot be invoked. Moreover, section 15-A of the Ordinance spells out the powers at the two levels for ordering transfers. The Legislature, therefore, in the context of the Ordinance, never intended to vest the High Court with the power to transfer a proceeding from on Controller to another. In such a situation, too, recourse to the Constitu tional provision relating to supervision of subordinate Courts cannot be had. The question of the powers of the High Court had specifically come before a Single Bench in Khadim Hussain v. Ghulam Muhammad (P L D 1971 Lab. 529) and it had been held that the "High Court has no power to direct the transfer of a case pending before a Rent Controller".
3. For these reasons the petition is not competent and is accordingly dismissed in limine. M. A. K Petition dismissed.