MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus SAFAHUDDIN

ORDER

1. SHAF1UR RAHMAN, J.‑ The petitioner, a tenant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 1‑10‑1983 whereby a constitutional petition challenging the order of ejectment passed against him was dismissed.

2. Respondent No. 1, the landlord, filed an application for ejectment against the petitioner and default in the payment of rent was not one of the grounds made the basis for h14 ejectment, As required by section 13 an order was passed by the Rent Controller calling upon him to deposit future monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 250 before 15th of next month. This order was passed on 17‑6‑1978. On 20‑7‑1978 the Rent Controller directed the petitioner to produce rent receipt on 29‑7‑1978. The rent receipt was not produced and the petitioner himself was not found present. This was taken by the Rent Controller to be a non‑compliance with the deposit‑order, his defence was struck off and an eviction order was passed on 29‑7‑1978. The petitioner then moved an application explaining his absence and that of his counsel urging at the same time that the deposit had been made in terms of the order and there was no default at all attracting the penal provision of the law. The Rent Controller dealt with the submissions of the petitioner as follows and rejected his application‑--

3. "The contention put forward by the learned Advocate may be correct factually but the question is as to whether the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to review the order passed by him. In this connection the law declared by the superior Courts is that the Rent Controller has absolutely no jurisdiction to review his order in his view of the matter there is no jurisdiction for review of the order, dated 29‑7‑1978 and the petition is rejected accordingly."

4. An appeal was filed before the District Judge failed on the ground that a copy of the order of the Rent Controller had not been filed and the appeal was not properly constituted. The merits of the contention were not touched nor the record called for.

5. The constitutional petition in the High Court also failed and it was maintained that there was no power of review in the Rent Controller and that the appeal was not properly constituted.

6. Finding that the jurisdictional requirement for action under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance was altogether absent we called upon the learned counsel for the caveator Malik Muhammad Qayyum, to justify the penalty imposed on the petitioner and the action taken. He could not. In view of the submissions made before us we convert this petition into an appeal, set aside the order under challenge, and restore the proceedings to the file of the appropriate Rent Controller having jurisdiction in the matter for its disposal in accordance with the law. The parties have been directed by us to appear before the learned District Judge, Lahore on 21‑3‑1984 who shall entrust the proceedings to a competent Rent Controller for dealing with it in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

7. S. Q. Case remanded.