1975 PLP 99 (SCMR)

MUMAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.

‑Respondent No. 3 is the transferee under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of a shop situated in Khushab, District Sargodha. The appellants are in possession of the shop and statutory tenants under respondent No.

3. On 5‑11‑1971 respondent No. 3 filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for eviction of the appellants on the ground of non‑payment of rent in spite of service of notice under section 30 of the said Act. The transfer in favour of respondent No. 3 had been earlier challenged by the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property District Committee, before the Settlement Commissioner on the ground that the shop was trust property. On 4‑6‑1969 the Settlement Commissioner passed an order staying recovery of rent of the shop and its further transfer by respondent No.

3. In view of the pendency of the proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner and the stay order passed by him the Rent Controller did not proceed with the trial of the application for eviction of the appellants and directed that it shall await the decision of the Settlement authorities, whether the shop was trust property or not. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the District Judge who set aside the stay order as in his opinion section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was not applicable to pro ceedings under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance and directed the Rent Controller should proceed with the trial of the application in accordance with law. Thereupon the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court claim ing that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the order of the Rent Controller who had stayed the proceedings for the reason that the transfer in favour of the respondent No. 3 was sub-judice before a competent tribunal. The petition was dismissed by a learned Judge in the view that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to stay the pro ceedings in the application for eviction of the appellants as section 10, C. P. C. was not applicable to the case. Leave to appeal was granted to consider correctness of the view express ed by the High Court and the District Judge that section 10, C. P. C. was not applicable to proceedings under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The question raised was of general public importance. It is brought to our notice that respondent No. 3 has since filed a writ petition to the High Court for quashing the proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner in which transfer of the shop in dispute in his favour is challenged. The writ petition has been admitted and the proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner have been stayed. The legal effect of the interim order passed by the High Court is that the title of the respondent No. 3 is currently not under adjudication by the Settlement Commissioner. Similarly the order passed by him staying the recovery of rent of the shop also stands suspended. In the light of this new development in the case the reason for which proceedings in the application for eviction of the appel lants were staved has disappeared. It may be pointed out that the appellants have admittedly paid no rent to respondents No. 3 ever since the shop has been transferred to him. We accordingly dismiss the appeal but‑without expressing any consider ed opinion on the question whether section 10, C. P. C. is applicable to the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. On proceedings under merits there is no ground to keep the proceedings for the eviction of the appellants in abeyance for an indefinite period. Costs of the appeal will abide the final decision in the case. Appeal dismissed.