2007L347 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.

Instant constitutional petition assailed the judgments/orders dated 14-3-2003 and 16-1-2006 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence, whereby, non-bailable warrants of the petitioner were issued and his revision petition was dismissed, respectively.

2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that respondent No.1 filed an ejectment petition under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for eviction of the petitioner from the shop on rent with him. Petitioner contested the ejectment petition but admitted the relationship of landlord/tenant inter parties. The learned Rent Controller, seized of the matter on 27-4-2006 passed an order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance (ibid) for deposit of the arrear/future rent at the rate of Rs.700 per month.

3. Petitioner did not deposit the rent in terms of order dated 27-4-2000 under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, leading to his eviction vide order, dated 26-9-2001, directing the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the rented shop within one month and to pay the arrear of rent from the date of institution of ejectment petition, till vacation of the demised 'premises.

4. Petitioner assailed his ejectment order by filing an appeal, which was dismissed on 13-12-2002. Respondent No.1 filed an execution petition and took over the possession of the shop, through bailiff of the Court on 16-4-2003.

5. The Executing Court on 18-2-2005 issued non-bailable warrants of arrest of the petitioner for recovery of arrear of rent amounting to Rs.18,200 as per final ejectment order, dated 26-9-2001. Petitioner filed an application before the Executing Court for rejection of execution petition and withdrawal of warrants of arrest but the same was dismissed on 14-3-2005.

6. Petitioner being aggrieved of order, dated 14-3-2005 dismissing his application filed a revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge but remained unsuccessful, as the same was also dismissed on 16-1-2006. He has now filed the instant constitutional petition, with the relief noted above. Respondent No.1 who is the only contesting party has been served for today but nobody appeared on his behalf, in spite of repeated calls hence he is proceeded against ex parte.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. Undisputedly, the learned Rent Controller, while invoking his jurisdiction under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 can tentatively assess the rate of rent and direct the tenant to deposit the arrear/future rent at this rate and when this tentative order passed by the learned Rent Controller, is not complied, the only option left with him is to strike off the defence of the tenant and to direct him to vacate the premises on rent with him.

8. It is clear from the language of section 13(6) of the Ordinance (ibid) that order provisionally fixing the rate of rent in event of dispute about its rate/deposit, would meet the result enumerated therein but at the time of final decision of the case, the Controller is under legal/statutory obligation to finally determine the amount of rent due from the tenant and to issue a direction that the same be paid to the landlord subject to adjustment of the approximate amount if deposited by the tenant. This latter part of the subsection (6) of section 13 was added by West Pakistan Ordinance, XXX of 1960 which for convenience and ready reference is reproduced below and reads as under: "(6) In proceedings under this section on the first date of hearing or as soon as possible after that date and before issues are framed, the Controller shall direct the tenant to deposit all the rent due from him, and also to deposit regularly till the final decision of the case, before the fifteenth day of each month the monthly rent due from him. If there is any dispute about the amount of rent due or the rate of rent, the Controller shall determine such amount approximately and direct that the same be deposited by the tenant before a date to be fixed for the purpose. If the tenant makes default in the compliance of such an order, then if he is the petitioner, his application shall be dismissed summarily and if he is the respondent his defence shall be struck off and the landlord put into possession of the property without taking any further proceedings in the case. The Controller shall finally determine the amount of rent due from the tenant and direct that the same be paid to the landlord, subject to adjustment of the approximate amount deposited by the tenant." (underlining is mine, to highlight relevance).

9. The learned Rent Controller, in compliance to above referred provision of law while accepting the ejectment petition of respondent No. 1 on 26-9-2001, finally determined the rate of rent and returned the findings that respondent No.1 is entitled to the arrears of rent from the date of institution of ejectment petition, till vacation of the demised premises. This direction was strictly in accordance with the law applicable. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Syed Akhlaque Hussain v. Habib Ismail Bajwa, Advocate 1974 SCMR 504 mandated that the learned Rent controller, is statutorily bound to finally determine the rent and those proceedings do not legally terminate, until the rent is finally determined. Scan of record and impugned orders revealed that controversy was correctly put to rest and petitioner's application for dismissal of ejectment petition/recall of warrants of arrest was rightly declined.

10. For the reasons noted above, no case for interference in constitutional jurisdiction, of this Court was made out. Even otherwise, lawful decision within the ambit of conferred jurisdiction, cannot be substituted on this petition which being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. F. B./G-36/L Petition dismissed.