PERCY JOSEPH vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE And Other
This matter arises from an ejectment proceeding wherein an ex parte order of ejectment was passed against the petitioner by the Rent Controller. The petitioner's application to set aside the ex parte order and his subsequent appeal were both dismissed, the latter being dismissed on the ground of limitation. A constitutional writ petition challenging the ejectment order was likewise dismissed by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist to confer jurisdiction upon the Controller, and that the appeal was not time-barred as the requisite certified copy had not been furnished. The Supreme Court held that both contentions had been duly considered and properly rejected by the High Court, and that no case was made out for the issuance of a writ. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Whether an appeal against an ex parte ejectment order can be dismissed on the ground of limitation when the certified copy of the order had not been furnished?
- Can a Rent Controller assume jurisdiction in an ejectment proceeding in the absence of the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to issue a writ against the concurrent orders of the lower forums in an ejectment matter?
ORDER .
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- This petition arises from an ejectment proceeding which resulted in the passing of ex parte order of ejectment of the petition by the Rent Controller on 23-6-1980. He filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order which failed on 15-9-1980. There--upon, he filed an appeal on 16-9-1980 but the same was dismissed on 15-7-1981 on the ground of limitation alone though the appellate Court observed that the petitioner should have also appealed from the refusal to set aside the ex parte order. The petitioner then challenged the order of his ejectment through a writ petition but the same, to, was dismissed by the impugned order, dated 10-4-1984.
2. It is argued, firstly, that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties and as such the Controller, by an erroneous finding on that jurisdictional fact could not assume jurisdiction and, secondly, that the appeal could not be held to be the-barred because certified copy of the Controller's order, dated 23-6-1980, for which an application had been made on 23-6- 1980, had not been furnished. Both the contentions, we find, had been raised before the High Court and dealt with at some length before rejecting the same. We are satisfied that no case had been made out for issue of a writ by the High Court. This petition for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.