SAMI ULLAH, MANAGING PARTNER, MESSRS SHIFA MEDICO (REGD.) Versus MUHAMMAD ASHIQ KHAN ABDALI

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑ ‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant in ejectment matter against the dismissal of petitioner's writ petition.

2. Learned counsel states that the petitioner having been physically evicted he does not any more challenge the order of eviction. He wants, however, to raise only the point with regard to final determination of rent payable to the landlord and order passed in that behalf under subsection (8) read with subsection (6) of section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. According to him, the Rent Controller was required by law to pass an order under subsection (8) after hearing the petitioner as a normal adjudication independently of the order of eviction.

3. This was not the point raised by the learned counsel before the High Court. The argument then raised and noted in para. 14 of the judgment of the High Court is that "the impugned order of ejectment would be rendered illegal by not passing a final order regarding adjustment of rent paid by the petitioner " The learned judge in the High Court observed that "omission to pass an order in terms of subsection (8) of section 13 does not adversely affect the validity of the impugned order." This approach to the point raised by the learned counsel in the High Court has not been objected to. What is sought to be argued is that the Rent Controller should not have passed any order of payment of rent under subsection (8) of section 13 without hearing the petitioner and at any rate the said order passed by the learned Rent Controller is erroneous to so far as the proper calculation of the amounts due, is concerned.

4. If this very argument would have been raised before the High Court in the manner now advanced before us, the position might have been different. It being a question of fact and requiring further inquiry, we decline to entertain it at this stage. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused and the petition is dismissed.

5. M.B.A. /S‑157/8 Petition dismissed