This constitutional petition challenged orders of the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. against an eviction order on the ground that the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to rent proceedings. The core legal questions were whether an ejectment order obtained through an unauthorized power of attorney and fraudulent consent statement is void, and whether rent controllers have jurisdiction to recall orders obtained by fraud. The High Court held that although the C.P.C. does not strictly apply to rent matters, rent controllers must follow its equitable principles so that no wrong remains unremedied. The Court declared the ejectment order void, holding that every court or tribunal possesses inherent jurisdiction to recall or review an order procured through fraud or misrepresentation, as fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller to proceed in accordance with law.
' SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMS!, J.--- This constitutional petition is directed against the order-dated 2-1- 2008 passed by Mr. Zafar Hussain Bhatti, the learned Additional District Judge Sheikhupura, whereby he maintained an order dated 9-10-2008 passed by Miss. Monazza Shahzadi, the learned Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, in which, she dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under section 12(2), C.P.C. On the ground that the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is ,not applicable to the rent petition.
2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that the property in dispute was gifted to Mst. Rani Bibi, mother of the petitioner, Muhammad Irfan, after whose death the same was devolved upon Muhammad Irfan, the petitioner, Abdur Rehman, Muhammad Adnan, Mst. Robina Bibi, Mst.
Shabana Bibi, Mst. Kanwal Bibi and Mst. Rehana Bibi vide mutation dated 6-1-2006. Thereafter one Tariq Mehmood claiming to be the owner of the said property, instituted an ejectment petition under section 13 of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against Muhammad Irfan, Abdur Rehman and Muhammad Adnan, on the ground of default in the payment of rent. In the said petition one Akhtar Ali claiming to be the general attorney of the respondents, filed a consenting written statement, whereupon the court proceeded to pass an ejectment order and ultimately the respondents were ejected from the demised property. To camouflage illegal situation the petitioner Tariq Mehmood then filed a petition under section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Ordinance, 2005 alleging that after eviction from the demised premises he had illegally been dispossessed therefrom, which matter is pending in the court of the learned Additional District Judge Sheikhupura.
3. At the time of execution of warrant of possession the respondents of the ejectment petition came to know about the eviction order passed against them and preferred an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Alleging that the order of ejectment was fraudulently procured by the petitioner Tariq Mehmood and that they never authorized Akhtar Ali to, appear in the court on their behalf and to make' a consenting statement. The application was resisted by Tariq Mehmood and the court vide order dated 9-10-2008 dismissed the same on the ground that. Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to the rent proceedings. Same findings came in appeal preferred against the said order. Hence, this writ petition.
4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties have been given due consideration and the record has been examined. It is noticed from the power of attorney executed in favour of Akhtar Ali by the present petitioner that the same does not contain any authority to appear in any case and to make statement on behalf of the executants. This being so, then Akhtar Ali, who appeared before the learned Rent Controller, made a consenting statement, the power exercised by the said Akhtar Ali was never granted to him. In this situation the proceedings taken by the learned Rent Controller after recording the statement of said Akhtar Ali became without lawful authority as the said attorney had performed an act for which he was never authorized. This leads to a conclusion that the order of ejectment was procured by practicing fraud upon the court. It is correct that the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the rent proceedings but the fact remains that the learned Rent Controller should follow the equitable principle contained in the Code for the simple reason that no wrong can be left unremedied. It is also well-recognized principle of law that every court or tribunal has inherent jurisdiction to rescind or recall a void order passed by itself. The order of eviction passed in the instant case was a void order as the same was procured fraudulently and by making misrepresentation. It would also be according to the spirit of law which provided that every court or tribunal has the power to even suo motu recall or review an order obtained from the court by fraud on the general principle that fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings and no party should be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud. In holding this view I am supported by a judgment of the Apex Court recorded in the case reported as PLD 1991 SC 997, Following the dictum of the apex Court this court declares the order passed by both the courts as ineffective and void, as such, are set aside. The learned Rent Controller is directed to follow the rule laid down in the case (supra) and to proceed with the case in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed with costs.