MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND ANOTHER vs Sh. MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which declined to interfere with an appellate court's decision to remand a rent case for a fresh determination of all issues. The respondent, claiming to be the purchaser of the property, initiated ejectment proceedings, leading to the framing of four preliminary issues, including jurisdiction, competency, service of notices, and the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Rent Controller initially decided only the issue regarding the landlord-tenant relationship, dismissing the application, but the appellate court set aside this order, directing a comprehensive decision on all issues to avoid piecemeal adjudication. The High Court affirmed this approach, emphasizing that trial courts should decide all issues in appealable cases to prevent unnecessary remands. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, rejecting the petitioners' argument of res judicata regarding an earlier dismissed appeal, noting that the contention was not raised before the High Court and the prior dismissal was based on non-maintainability. The petition was consequently dismissed.
- Is it appropriate for a Rent Controller to decide only a single preliminary issue in an ejectment application rather than deciding all issues?
- Does a dismissal of an appeal on the grounds of non-maintainability create a res judicata bar against subsequent proceedings?
- Should trial courts decide all issues in appealable cases to avoid the necessity of a remand?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
- Section 13-A, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of the High Court to interfere in their second appeal, with an order of remand passed by the appellate Court is a rent matter.
2. In the proceeding brought by the respondent, who claimed to have purchased the property from its transferee the following preliminary issues had been framed : "(1) Whether the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction in the case ? O. R.
(2) Whether the petition is incompetent ? 0. R.
(3) Whether valid notices under sections 30, D. P. Act, 1958, and 13-A of Ordinance VI of 1959 have been served on the respondent ? 0. P.
(4) Whether the parties are landlord and tenant ? 0. P.
The Rent Controller decided the fourth issue only which went in favour of the petitioners and accordingly dismissed the ejectment application. The appellate Court, however set aside the order and directed the Controller "to decide all the issues afresh after considering the entire evidence on the file". The respondent, who had during the pendency of the appeal applied for producing additional evidence, was asked to press his application before the Controller. The High Court did not approve of personal decision of the preliminary issues by the Controller and accordingly held that "it is appropriate that in appealable cases the trial Court should decide all the issues to avoid remand".
2. We do not think that there is any scope for interfering with the decision of the High Court. Learned counsel submits that an earlier appeal brought by the respondent against the finding on the preliminary issue having been dismissed on 21-6-1971 the finding on the issue had become res judicata. There is no substance in the submission because that earlier appeal had not only been dismissed for non-maintainability but also such contention had riot been put forth before the High Court. This petition for leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed.