Agha KAMRAN ZAMAN KHAN vs NASEER AHMAD QURESHI by Legal Heir and 6
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court in a rent cause, wherein interim orders passed by the Rent Controller determining the rent of the disputed premises under the relevant statutory provisions were upheld. The core legal question concerned the legality and tentative nature of the tentative rent determination made by the Rent Controller under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whether such interim determination could be challenged through a constitutional petition. The Supreme Court held that even if the Rent Controller did not explicitly use the word tentative, the nature of the determination under subsection (6) of section 13 is inherently tentative, allowing the tenant to lead evidence during the proceedings to establish a lower rental rate and claim a refund for any excess amounts deposited. The key principle laid down is that interim rent determinations by a Rent Controller are tentative in legal effect, preserving the parties' rights to final adjudication upon evidence.
- Whether an interim determination of rent by a Rent Controller is tentative in nature?
- Can a tentative rent determination under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 be challenged through a constitutional petition?
- Is a tenant entitled to a refund of excess rent deposited if the final determination is lower than the tentative amount?
- Section 13(6), Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Leave to appeal is claimed in a rent cause against the judgment, dated 16-7-1997 passed in Writ Petition No,11178 of 1997, whereby the interim orders made by the Rent Controller on 19-3-1997 and 16-4-1997, determining the rent for the disputed premises under subsection (6) of section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, were upheld.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the learned Rent Controller having failed to tentatively determine the rental of the disputed premises quite in line with the case of Abdul Majeed v. Wazir Begum (1996 SCM R 1681), such determination can be made the subject- matter of a Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. According to him, the learned Single Judge of the High Court was in error of jurisdiction in not resolving the matter in favour of the petitioner/ tenant. The rental at the rate of Rs,2,000 per mensem can be increased by Rs,500 but accepting the point of view of the respondent /landlord that such rental was Rs,3,000 per mensem since December, 1994, runs counter to the spirit of law.
3. We are afraid the argument is wide off the marks. Even if the learned Rent Controller did not say in so many words that the fixation of the rental at the rate of Rs,2,500 is tentative, the treatment to be meted out to such finding cannot but be held to be tentative in terms of subsection (6) of section 13 (ibid). Looked at from this angle, the petitioner/tenant is still within his right to lead whatever evidence he wants to, while the hearing of the petition before the Rent Controller is current, for establishing on record that the rental should be less than Rs,3,000. In the event of the Rent Controller determining the rental at any other amount less than Rs,3,000 the petitioner will be entitled to refund of the amount deposited in excess thereof.