MUHAMMAD ASAR HUSSAIN, ADVOCATE Versus SIXTH SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND RENT CONTROLLER, KARACHI (EAST)

1. Petitioner who is an Advocate of this Court has filed this petition in his capacity as pro bono publico and has assailed order passed by respondent No. 1. By virtue of that order Rent Case No. 469 of 1995 was admitted and the petitioner who is Ipplicant in that rent case was ordered to deposit process fee of Rs.200. This order of Rent Controller, Karachi (East) is impugned before me. Notice to the Advocate‑General was ordered and Mr. Abdul Ghani Shaikh is present and has supported the petitioner. Since all the parties were present with their consent I am converting Katcha Peshi to regular hearing and dispose of the matter finally.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance does not provide for such an order nor confer any authority in the Rent Controller to pass such order. of process fee of Rs.200 which is not provided in the Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. This position has also been conceded by the learned Additional Advocate‑General Mr. Abdul Ghani Shaikh who appeared on Court notice.

3. The procedure of Rent Controller is mentioned is section 19. That section does not empower the Rent Controller to order the deposit of fixed A amount as has been done in this case, The powers under section 20 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 only confers those powers which are mentioned in the said Act and these provisions are reproduced:‑‑

4. "Power of Civil Court.‑‑ (1) Subject to this Ordinance, the Controller and the Appellate Authority shall, for the purpose of any case under this Ordinance have powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908) in respect of only the matters, namely:‑‑

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

(b) compelling production or discovery of documents;

(c) inspecting the site; and

(d) issuing commission for examination of witnesses or documents."

5. It will be seen from the provision of section 20 that only certain procedural power has been conferred on Rent Controller and not all powers of a g Civil Judge presiding as Civil Court. Even this section does not permit the Rent Controller to pass such order of deposit of fixed amount as process fee.

6. In terms of Article 37 of the Constitution in clause (d) it has been provided that the State shall ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice. Although the Courts do not enforce the principle of policy, the State may be reminded about its duty placed on their shoulders within the parameters of the Constitution.

7. Even otherwise Article 2A incorporated in the Constitution adopts Objectives Resolution and one such clause of the Objectives Resolution provides as follows:‑‑

8. "Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed."

9. . The above Article 37(d) is in consonance with the above‑quoted clause of the Objectives Resolution as religious principles recognise inexpensive justice to be dispensed by the Court. Also access to justice to all is command of the Constitution and recognized as inviolable right in terms of Article 9, as interpreted by Full Bench of that Court in the case of Sharaf Faridi and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1989 Kar.404. If access to justice is made expensive such as the order passed by the Rent Controller it may cause undue hindrance in relation to access to justice. Even otherwise to be dealt in accordance with law is inalienable right .of every citizen, and since no law authorises the Rent Controller to pass such order of deposit of process fee, therefore, such order is without any lawful authority and it is quashed as such.

10. The order passed by the Rent Controller calling upon the deposit of Rs.200 is contrary to the concept envisaged in Article 37(d) of the Constitution as well which recognises inexpensive justice to be provided to the citizens.

11. For the above reasons this petition is allowed and the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. In view of the question involved, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

12. Mr. Muhammad .Asar Hussain petitioner states that he had deposited Rs.200 with the Nazir of this Court pursuant to the orders passed on 14‑12‑1996 which may be ordered to be given back to him.

13. A.A./M‑168/K Order accordingly