MUMTAZ ETC. vs THE DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA ETC.
This matter concerns an appeal against an order of the High Court, which upheld a District Judge's decision directing a Rent Controller to proceed with an eviction application despite pending proceedings before Settlement authorities regarding the property's title. The core legal question was whether Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, concerning the stay of suits, applies to proceedings under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. During the appeal, it was revealed that the High Court had stayed the proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner, thereby suspending the challenge to the respondent's title and the previous stay order on rent recovery. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the original grounds for staying the eviction proceedings had effectively disappeared. The Court declined to definitively rule on the applicability of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to rent restriction proceedings, finding that on the merits, there was no justification to keep the eviction application in abeyance indefinitely, especially given the appellants' failure to pay rent.
- Does the pendency of title disputes before Settlement authorities justify an indefinite stay of eviction proceedings under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can a Rent Controller stay eviction proceedings based on Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
- Section 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. ' MUHAMMAD YAQOOB ALL, J.--Respondent No, 3 is the transferee under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of a shop situated in Khushab, District Sargodha. The appellants are in possession of the shop and statutory tenants under respondent No,
3. On 5-11-1971 respondent No, 3 filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for eviction of the appellants on the ground of non-payment of rent in spite of service of notice under section 30 of the said Act.
2. ' The transfer in favour of respondent No, 3 had been earlier challenged by the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property District Committee, before the Settlement Commissioner on the ground that the shop was trust property. On 4-6-1969 the Settlement Commissioner passed an order staying recovery of rent of the shop and its further transfer by respondent No, 3.
3. ' In view of the pendency of the proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner and the stay order passed by him the Rent Controller did not proceed with the trial of the application for eviction of the appellants and directed that it shall await the decision of the Settlement authorities, whether the shop was trust property or not.
4. ' Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller respondent No, 3 filed an appeal before the District Judge who set aside the stay order as in his opinion section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was not applicable to proceedings under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance and directed the Rent Controller should proceed with the trial of the application in accordance with law.
5. ' Thereupon the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from \ the order of the Rent Controller who had stayed the proceedings for the reason that the transfer in favour of the respondent No, 3 was subjudice before a competent tribunal. The petition was dismissed by a learned Judge in the view that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to stay the proceedings in the application for eviction of the appellants as section 10, C. P. C. Was not applicable to the case.
6. ' Leave to appeal was granted to consider correctness of the view expressed by the High Court and the District Judge that section 10, C. P. C. Was not applicable to proceedings under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The question raised was of general public importance.
7. It is brought to our notice that respondent No, 3 has since filed a writ petition to the High Court for quashing the proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner in which transfer of the shop in dispute in his favor is challenged. The writ petition has been admitted and the proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner have been stayed. The legal effect of the interim order passed by the High Court is that the title of the respondent No, 3 is currently not under adjudication by the Settlement Commissioner. Similarly the order passed by him staying the recovery of rent of the she also stands suspended. In the light of this new development in the case the reason for which proceedings in the application for eviction of the appellants were staved has disappeared. It may be pointed out that the appellants have admittedly paid no rent to respondent's No, 3 ever since the shop has been transferred to him.
8. ' We accordingly dismiss the appeal but without expressing any considered opinion on the question whether section 10, C. P. C. Is applicable to proceedings under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. On merits there is no ground to keep the proceedings for the eviction of the appellants in 'abeyance for an indefinite period. Costs of the appeal will abide the final decision in the case.