FAZAL ELABI Versus SHARIFULLAH
This appeal by special leave challenges the dismissal of a second appeal by the Lahore High Court arising from proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question concerned whether an interlocutory order regarding the absence of a third party's interest in the rented property was final and appealable separately, or whether fragmentary appeals against interim orders under section 13(6) of the Ordinance are barred. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the practice of fragmentary decisions in rent jurisdictions does not advance the interests of justice and that parties must wait until a final order is passed before filing an appeal. The key principle laid down is that piecemeal or fragmentary litigation and appeals against interim orders in rent matters are impermissible.
- Whether an appeal is competent against an interim order passed under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does the practice of fragmentary decisions in rent proceedings advance the interests of justice?
- Whether a third party claiming an interest in the property can maintain a separate appeal before a final order is passed by the Rent Controller?
- Section 13(6), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Section 15, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑ This appeal through special leave Challenges he dismissal' of a 2nd appeal by the Lahore High Court on 18‑10‑1977, in a matter arising out of proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
2. Sharifullah respondent No.1 institute ejectment application against Mst. Rashida respondent No 2 on grounds of default in payment of rent and personal requirement. Fazal Elahi appellant moved an application for being. impleaded as a respondent on the ground that he had an interest in the property. He also claimed to be in possession of property and that Mst. Rashida was his maid servant. This application was allowed on 9‑5‑1973. Sharifullah respondent No. 1 accordingly filed amended eviction petition.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :
4. "(1) Whether there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? O. P. A.
(2) Whether the service of notice was essential and in case of non‑service, its effect ? O. P. R.
(3) Whether respondent‑No. 1 is owner of the said property ? O. P. R,
(4) Relief."
5. By his order dated 22‑10‑1974, the learned Controller found that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between Sharifullah and Mst. Ras hid; and that Fazal Elahi appellant had not been able to establish big plea that Mst. Rashida was his domestic servant and was living with him. The issue regarding notice was decided against Mst. Rashida. Accordingly, an order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance for deposit of arrears and future rent was passed on 20‑10‑1974.
6. The appellant and Mst. Rashida instead of waiting for a final order under section 13(6) filed an appeal against the order dated 20‑10‑1974 which was dismissed on merits. The findings of fact by the learned Rent Controller was affirmed in 1st appeal. The 2nd appeal filed by the appellant and Mst. Rashida was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on the ground that it was not competent. Reliance was placed on Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain (P L D 1975 S C 457). On a petition filed, by Fazal Elahi appellant, leave to appeal was granted 'to consider whether the decision that the appellant had no interest in the property in dispute was not final qua him. And if it was final whether it was not appealable. ,
7. Learned counsel has contended that the case of the appellant came to an end when a finding of fact was rendered against him that he was not in possession of the property and that Mst. Rashida was not his domestic servant. He also contended that Mst. Rashida supported the appellant's plea, therefore the main issue qua her also stood finally decided. That being so an appeal under section 15 of the Ordinance could be competently filed. Learned counsel has also contended that the learned Rent Controller was bound to direct the appellant to deposit the rent because he had admitted his possession of the property. If that would have been done the appellant might have waited till another order was passed under section 13(6), before filing an appeal.
8. None of the arguments raised by the learned counsel has impressed us. The rule laid down in the case of Ibrahim by this Court was not based on any technicality of law. One of the principles followed was that the practice of fragmentary decisions in the jurisdictions like that of the Rent Controller under the Ordinance, does not advance the interests of justice‑rather it is the negation thereof. It fully applied to this case also. Mst. Rashida whom the appellant claimed to be his domestic servant residing with him, was found to be tenant under Sharifullah respondent in the property in dispute. She alone could be ordered to deposit the rent. Both the appellant and Mst. Rashida could wait till a final order under section 13(6) was passed. It would not have made any practical difference for the appellant. In the circumstances, it appears that he wanted to prolong the litigation through fragmentary decisions. The approach of the learned Single Judge in the High Court was unexceptionable. This appeal is dismissed with costs.
9. Appeal dismissed