MANZOOR AHMAD Versus ABDUL HAQUE
This matter arises from a dispute over a shop transferred to the respondent by the Settlement Department, where the respondent filed an ejectment application against the predecessor of the petitioners, Jan Muhammad. The Rent Controller determined that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed and ordered the deposit of tentative rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. On appeal, the Additional District Judge dismissed the ejectment application after finding no such relationship existed. The Lahore High Court allowed the respondent's revision petition and remanded the case. The core legal question is whether an appeal lies against an interlocutory finding on the relationship of landlord and tenant and an order for tentative rent under section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that section 15(1) of the Ordinance is restrictive, limiting appeals to specific final orders, and that incidental or interlocutory orders regarding the existence of tenancy are not appealable. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, leaving the Rent Controller to proceed with the case.
- Whether an appeal is competent against an interlocutory order of a Rent Controller determining the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Does section 15(1) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 limit the right of appeal to specific final orders?
- Is an order directing the deposit of tentative rent under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 appealable?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
- Section 13(6), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959
- Section 15(1), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM. J.‑ The dispute relates to a shop in the rear portion of property No. S.E‑9‑R‑54, situated as Brandreth Road, Lahore, which was transferred to the respondent by the Settlement Department on 26‑1‑1960 but was in possession of Jan Muhammad, now represented by his legal representatives. Before the P. T. D. was issued, the property was demarcated for the purpose of evaluation of rental value and it was held to be a part of the portion transferred to the respondent. The respondent served a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 on Jan Muhammad but the latter failed to pay rent and on 5‑1‑1967 the respondent filed an ejectment application before the Rent Controller. Jan Muhammad took the defence that the room was transferred to him and as such be was not a tenant of the respondent. The Rent Controller thereupon framed a preliminary issue as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The issue was decided in favour of the respondent and on the same date he passed an order for the deposit of tentative rent as required by section 13 (6) of West Pakistan 'Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Jan Muhammad there upon went in appeal and assailed both the. orders. The learned Additional District Judge held that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and therefore, by order dated 31‑10‑1967, set aside the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the ejectment application. The respondent preferred a Revision in the. Lahore High Court which was allowed and the case was remanded to tire Rent Controller for taking further proceedings in accordance with law. The legal representatives of Jan Muhammad now seek special leave to appeal against that order.
2. The question which arises for consideration is whether Jan Muhammad could have filed an appeal under section 15 (1) of the Ordinance against the decision of the Rent Controller holding him to be a tenant and so also against the order directing him to pay tentative rent under section 13(6) of the said Ordinance. The competency of such an appeal was considered this Court in Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain (P L J 1979 Cr. C. (Bahawalpur) 6Q8) and it was held that "sub-section (1) of section 15 is restrictive in character and limits right of appeal against an order falling under section 4, 10, 12 or 13 of the Ordinance." An order, therefore, which is "not germane to the substance of the dispute but which is merely incidental or collateral to the dispute and which ha been disposed of by an interlocutory order" is not appealable. The order appealed against falls within this category and was not appealable. The appeal, therefore, to the District Judge was incompetent and so was the second appeal. On this view of the matter the petition is incompetent. The consequence of the failure of the petition would be that the Rent Controller would be seized of the case which he should decide in accordance with law.
3. With this observation the petition is dismissed.
4. Petition dismissed.