MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND Another vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI
The matter concerns a civil petition for special leave to appeal arising from rent restriction proceedings regarding premises in Sialkot, where a saw mill and timber stall were operated. The respondent landlord sought the ejectment of the petitioner tenant, initially for personal residential use and subsequently for business purposes. Following multiple rounds of litigation before the Rent Controller and appellate authorities, an ejectment order was eventually passed against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this order before the Supreme Court, contending that the Rent Controller's decision was passed under Section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, which the petitioner argued rendered the order non-appealable. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the underlying application was filed under Section 13 for ejectment. The Court clarified that the nature of the application determines the applicable legal provision, and the mere erroneous citation of Section 14 by the Rent Controller did not remove the order from the scope of Section 13, which governs ejectment proceedings and allows for appeals. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
- Does the erroneous citation of Section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance in an ejectment order render the order non-appealable if the application was filed under Section 13?
- Does the nature of the application or the section cited by the Rent Controller determine the appealability of an ejectment order?
- Section 13, Rent Restriction Ordinance
- Section 14, Rent Restriction Ordinance
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-The dispute relates to certain premises situate at the Church Road, Sialkot wherein a saw mill has been installed and a timber stall is being run. Muhammad Shafi, respondent, filed an application under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance for the ejectment of Muhammad Bashir, petitioner, from these premises as he wanted to utilize them for his personal use as a house. This, petition was accepted in 1971 and appeal filed against it was rejected by the Additional District Judge. S. A. O. 264 of 1975 was, however, accepted on 20-9-1976 and the application for ejectment was rejected.
2. On 2-2-1977 a second application for ejectment was filed by Muhammad Shafi against Muhammad Bashir on the basis that he required the premises for starting a business. This application was rejected. On 20-6-1977 an appeal against this order was accepted and the case was remanded. On 31-1-1979 ejectment of the petitioner from the aforementioned premises was ordered. An appeal was filed against it, which was dismissed as was a second appeal on 3-5-1980.
Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
3. The only contention raised before us is that the order of the Rent Controller was passed under section 14 and orders passed under that section are not appealable, This submission is devoid of force because the application was under section 13 for the ejectment of the petitioner and it was the application for ejectment which was dismissed wherefor the order passed fell under section 13 and the mere fact that section 14 was applied did not take it out of the four corners of the previous section.
4. This petition has no force and is, therefore, dismissed.