1989 PLP 954 (CLC)

Faizuddin for Appellant. Ali Muhammad Memon for Respondent. This First Rent Appeal is directed against the orders dated 23‑8‑1984, 30‑3‑1986 and 8‑7‑1987 passed by the learned Rent Controller Karachi (East) in Rent Case No.2082/1985 (Old No.2540/1983).‑ The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent Zaffar Ali filed ejectment application against the appellants on 9‑6‑1983 inter alia alleging therein that he is the owner and landlord of building No.56‑D Nursery Commercial Area, Block No.6. P.E.C.H. Society, Karachi, having purchased the same on 6‑1‑1979. The ground floor of the said building consists of shops, while upper floor consists of residential flats. That the Opponent /appellant No.l was tenant in shop No.3 of the said building at monthly rent of Rs.225 exclusive of all taxes and electric charges, and the opponents No‑.2 and 3 were in occupation of the said shop on behalf of or under the Opponent No.l. That the shop in question was required by him for his personal bona fide use for which a notice was served on the opponents but they have failed to hand over vacant possession. The opponents/appellants filed written statement in which the relationship of landlord and tenant and the rate of rent was admitted. However, it was further stated that the opponent No.2 was looking after the business of the opponent No.l and the rest of the contents were denied. It was also denied that the landlord required the premises for bona fide use but according to the opponents he had demanded enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.800 per month and on their refusal this application was filed. However, during pendency of the above case, the applicant filed application under section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, requesting therein that the Opponents /appellants may be directed to deposit arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1,800 and they should also be directed to deposit future rents. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties passed a tentative order on 23‑8‑1984 directing the appellants /opponents to deposit arrears of rent which had by that time come to Rs.2,925 and they were further directed to deposit future rents on or before 10th of every month. On 15th November, 1984 the applicant /landlord moved an application under section 16(2) of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance for striking off the defence of the appellant /opponent on the ground that he had failed to comply with the order passed by the Court on 23‑8‑1984. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties allowed the above application on 30‑3‑1986 and the defence of the appellant was struck off. Later on, an execution application was filed by the respondent which was allowed on 8‑7‑1987 after taking into consideration the objections filed by the appellant. It was stated by Mr. Ali Muhammad Memon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the appellant has been dispossessed in execution of the said order and this fact was not controverted by Mr. Faizuddin. It was contended by Mr. Faizuddin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller on 23‑8‑1984 and 30‑3‑1986 were without jurisdiction inasmuch as there was no notification appointing the learned Rent Controller as Rent Controller having jurisdiction over the premises in dispute. That the order passed by the learned Rent Controller was against the spirit of Article 175 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. The learned counsel for the appellant has not produced any document or notification to show that the learned Rent Controller who passed the tentative order and, the order striking off the defence of the appellant had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Moreover, the appeal itself was time‑barred inasmuch as the tentative order was passed on 23‑8‑1984 and the final order was passed on 30‑3‑1986, while the appeal has been filed on 16‑7‑1987. The provisions of S.5 of Limitation Act are not applicable to the appeals under Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, by virtue of section 29 of the Limitation Act. In this connection reference may also be made to P L D 1982 SC 88, wherein it was observed icy their Lordships of the Supreme Court that section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to the applications and appeals filed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. As far as order dated 8‑7‑1987 passed in execution application was concerned, the same was not appealable, reliance is placed on 1987 C L C 1345. As far as Article 175 of the Constitution was concerned, it reads as under:‑-- A‑175(1) There shall be a Supreme Court of Pakistan, a High Court for each Province and such other Courts as may be established by law. (2) No Court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any law. (3) The Judiciary shall be separated progressively from the Executive within (fourteen) years from the commencing day. There is no cavil as far as the provision of Article 175 of the Constitution was concerned. However, as pointed out above the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not been able to show as to how, the learned Rent Controller, who passed the tentative order as well as the order striking off the defence of the appellant, had no jurisdiction. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the appeal filed by the appellant was time‑barred and that the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller on 23‑8‑1984, and 30‑3‑1986 do not suffer from any infirmity, while the order dated 8‑7‑1987 could not be challenged in appeal, therefore, this appeal is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./H‑108/K Appeal dismissed.