BABU DIN vs CIVIL JUDGE/RENT CONTROLLER, MULTAN And 6 Other
This constitutional petition arises from an eviction matter wherein respondents Nos.2 to 7 filed an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the petitioner. The petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. Despite this denial and prior to the determination of the issue regarding such relationship, the Rent Controller directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent under section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The core legal question was whether a tentative rent order can be passed when the very relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed and yet to be adjudicated. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order directing the deposit of rent suffers from material irregularity, illegality, and jurisdictional defect because the relationship of landlord and tenant had not yet been determined. The court accordingly allowed the constitutional petition, declared the rent order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and directed the Rent Controller to conclude the main case within two months. The key principle laid down is that a direction to deposit rent cannot validly be issued before the preliminary determination of the disputed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
- Can a Rent Controller pass an order to deposit rent under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 when the relationship of landlord and tenant is explicitly denied and yet to be determined?
- Does an order directing the deposit of rent suffer from jurisdictional defect if issued prior to deciding the issue of tenancy?
- What is the remedy available against a premature rent deposit order passed by a Rent Controller?
- Section 13, Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Section 13(6), Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, J.---Respondents Nos.2 to 7 filed an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the house in question. Relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by the petitioner, therefore, the learned Rent Controller frame the following issues:--
(1) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, if so, whether the petitioners are entitled to get rent from the respondent'? OP Parties.
(2) Relief.
2. However, on an application moved by respondents Nos.2 to 7, the learned Rent Controller passed an order under section 13(6) (ibid) directing the petitioner to deposit the rent w.e.f. June, 2002 to March, 2005 vide order, dated 28-3-2005,. Now impugned through the instant constitutional petition.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Undeniably, the relationship of landlord and tenant has yet to be determined, therefore, the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit the rent suffers from material irregularity/illegality and jurisdictional defect. Hence, this Constitutional petition stands allowed A by declaring the same without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It shall be in the fitness of things and fairplay that the learned Rent Controller shall decide the case within two months from the receipt of copy of this order.
Cited by 6 cases
- Nisar Ullah vs Farman Ali 2024 PHC 212, 2024 YLR 2779
- Muhammad Irfan vs Addl. District Judge, etc 2023 LHC 5703
- Mian UMAR IKRAM-U1-HAQUE vs Dr. SHAHIDA HASNAIN and another 2016 SCP 86, 2016 SCMR 2186
- Mian Umar Ikram-ul-Haque vs Dr. Shahida Hasnain and another 2016 SCP 86
- Mian UMAR IKRAM-UL-HAQUE vs Dr. SHAHIDA HASNAIN and another 2017 PLJ SC 1
- FARRUKH NADEEM vs MUHAMMAD AHMAD KHAN and another 2009 MLD 955