2010 PLP 538 (YLR)

Appellant filed an ejectment petition under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 against Muhammad Saqib respondent No.2 on the ground of default in payment of monthly rent since January, 2002. The said Muhammad Saqib by filing the written statement denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and issue qua the same was also framed. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3135 of 2006 in this Court on "the ground that despite a lapse of considerable time and numerous dates of hearing, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent had executed an agreement/rent note in favour of the petitioner, the learned Rent Controller is not recording the evidence on the issue qua the relationship of landlord and tenant and respondent is not paying the rent, so much so, that no order under section 17(8) of the Rent Restriction Act, 1963 has been passed.

2. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 4-12-2006 with the direction to the landlord Rent Controller to record the statement of the appellant, on the next date of hearing and by allowing him to place on record rent note/agreement, decide the issue of landlord and tenant and proceed in accordance with law by exercising the jurisdiction to pass an order under section 17(8) of the Act.

3. The learned Rent Controller recorded the statement of the appellant/ landlord but did not allow the cross-examination upon him, he also did not allow the appellant to produce evidence upon that issue, without recording the evidence on the said issue and without allowing the other side to cross-examine the appellant and without recording the findings upon the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant the learned Rent Controller proceeded to pass an order dated 3-2-2007 fixing the rent at the rate of Rs.10,000 per month directing the respondent/tenant to deposit the rent from December, 2005 to January, 2007 amounting to Rs.1,40,000 before 20th February, 2007 in the Court and to deposit future rent before 5th day of each succeeding month.

4. In pursuance of the order issued by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition 303/07, dated 20-2-2007 appellant entered appearance and stated that he had no objection to set aside the order, dated 3-2-2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller, therefore, after setting aside the order dated 3-2-2007, the learned Rent Controller was directed to give one opportunity to the respondent/tenant to cross-examine the appellant/landlord, thereafter, an opportunity would be granted to the tenant/respondent No.2 to produce his evidence on the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant and also the ejectment petition be decided by him within two months from the date of passing of the said order.

5. Appellant, who is landlord, being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber has filed this appeal and. on Court question he stated that although respondent No.2/tenant has vacated the premises but certain amount of rent is due against him and he be directed to pay the same to him.

6. We are afraid that the request made by the appellant cannot be allowed. If the some rent is due towards respondent No.2/tenant, appellant has a remedy of filing a civil suit for the recovery of the same. Moreover, in view of the bar contained in section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, present appeal is not competent as remedy of appeal under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act is provided and this present appeal is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M-544/L Appeal dismissed.