P L D 2005 Peshawar 153 (PLP)

IJAZ‑UL‑HASSAN KHAN, J.‑‑‑By this single judgment Writ Petitions Nos. 1413 and 1419 of 2001 are disposed of as they carry identical questions of law and facts and also arise out of the same order dated 11‑9‑2001 recorded by Additional Controller of Rent, Peshawar Cantt. Staying the ejectment proceedings, till decision of Civil Suit No.130/96.

2. Shortly narrated the facts giving rise to the filing of instant petitions are that Mian Muhammad Zia and others, petitioners filed applications on 27‑8‑1996 before Controller of Rents, Peshawar Cantt. Under Act XI of 1963, for ejectment of Muhammad Nazir and others, respondents from Suit Shops Nos.403(94‑A/27) and 404 (94‑A/26), situated in Kawatra Building, Arbab Road, Peshawar Cantt. On the ground of default in payment of rent etc. The applications were strongly resisted by the respondents and existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, was denied. During the trial an application was moved on behalf of the respondents seeking stay of the ejectment proceedings till the disposal of Suit No.130/96 for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20‑9‑1993 as amended by agreement dated 7‑9‑1994. The application having been opposed by the petitioners was allowed through the impugned order dated 11‑9‑2001 by Additional Controller of Rents, Peshawar Cantt. and the proceedings were stayed accordingly till decision of suit pending in Civil Court.

3. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved, have filed instant writ petitions mainly on the ground that Additional Controller of Rents, Peshawar Cantt. had no jurisdiction to entertain the application, as there is no provision under Act XI of 1963 empowering the Controller to suspend/stay the proceedings in the ejectment case. The soundness of the impugned order has also been challenged on a number of grounds and it is urged by Mr. Muhammad Naeem Yousafzai, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners that agreement to sell would not, per se, create a right in property agreed to be sold, but simply would give proposed purchase to enforce sale agreement for finalization and compilation of sale‑deed. In support of the contentions, reliance has been placed on Mrs. Annetta Haroon v. Mst. Sughran Bibi and others 2000 SCMR 716; Iqbal and 6 others v. Mst. Rabia Bibi and another PLD 1991 SC 242 and Fazal Din v. Muhammad Hussain 1994 CLC 1474.

4. M/s. Hashim Raza, Asim Riaz Awan and Muhammad Ali, Advocates, learned counsel for respondents, refuted` the. arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and supported, the impugned order whole heartedly. They placed reliance on Niaz Khalil v. Sh. Muhammad Shafiq 1995 SCMR 791; Kh. Noorul Qadir Darabu v. Ejaz Ahmad and others PLD 1997 Kar. 501.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. There is no denial of the fact that a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20‑9‑1993, as amended by agreement dated 7‑9‑1994 (Annexures D and E) is pending before a competent Court of law for adjudication and in view of the application made by the respondents, the proceedings before Additional Controller of Rents, Peshawar Cantt., have been stayed by virtue of order dated 11‑9‑2001. We find force in the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents that writ petition challenging an interlocutory order is not maintainable for the reason that where law itself had not given right of appeal against certain orders, there the same could not be challenged in any of the forums to gain similar object which had been barred by statute itself. If the Constitutional jurisdiction was allowed to be invoked in cases where appeal is specifically barred, it would negate the very purpose of the statute and render the provision meaningless, as held by this Court in cases titled Zar Faroosh v. Sikandar Aziz and 5 others PLD 1997 Pesh. 64 and Muhammad Daud v. Mst. Surriya Iqbal and another PLD 2000 Pesh. 54.

6. So far as the objection of learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no provision in the Act XI of 1963 empowering the Rent Controller to suspend the proceedings in the ejectment case, the objection is not valid. A Court or Tribunal of competent jurisdiction, is empowered to pass as order in the interest of justice in the exercise of inherent powers, of course, having regard to fact and circumstances of the case. The impugned order has been passed for valid reasons and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioners. Adverting to the objection regarding soundness or otherwise of agreement to sell dated 20‑9‑2003, the same can conveniently be urged and pressed into service before the Court, seized of the matter and not at this stage. In the wake of above discussion, we find that the petitions are not maintainable. The same are dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./391/P Petitions dismissed.