MRS. FEROZE ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD AKHTAR
This matter arises from a writ petition filed by a landlord challenging an order passed by a Rent Controller setting aside an ex parte ejectment order against the tenant and reopening eviction proceedings. The core legal question is whether a constitutional writ petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order setting aside an ex parte ejectment order when the final eviction proceedings are still pending. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, holding that since a final order had not yet been passed, the petitioner had an adequate alternate remedy by way of an appeal under Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, wherein any interlocutory order could be challenged. The Court laid down the principle that fragmentary decisions and writ petitions against interlocutory orders in rent matters are strongly discouraged to prevent protracted litigation and delay in the administration of justice.
- Is a writ petition maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller setting aside an ex parte ejectment order?
- Can interlocutory orders that are not independently appealable be challenged in an appeal filed against the final order under Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does a party suffer remediable harm requiring writ jurisdiction when challenging preliminary orders in ongoing rent proceedings?
- Section 15, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
' Through this writ petition a landlord has called in question an order passed by a learned Rent Controller whereby after setting aside an earlier ex parte ejectment order passed against the respondent/tenant, he has proceeded to hear the petition for eviction filed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel has contended that the Rent Controller bad no jurisdiction to set aside the ex- parte order and that an appeal against such an order being not competent the landlord has moved this Court in writ jurisdiction.
2. It cannot be doubted that a final order of dismissal of the landlord's application for eviction has not yet been passed. The Rent Controller has commenced the proceedings afresh after setting aside the ex-parte order. If and when the Rent Controller passes a final order dismissing the petitioner' application, he will have a right of appeal, and it is not denied that in that appeal all interlocutory orders which if they are not independently appealable under section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, can be brought under challenge. Looked at in this context it cannot be said that the petitioner would have no remedy against the order which has been brought under challenge in this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel has also contended that the petitioner would suffer unnecessary harm through the conduct of proceedings by a forum which according to him, has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter any further. Similar situation was visualized and arguments addressed in the case of Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain (1) their Lordships were pleased to observe as follows "Reference has been made to these dates to underline the unfortunate fact that it has taken almost 10 years to bring the matter to this Court for its decision on a purely preliminary point, leaving the main controversy about the liability of the respondent for ejectment to be determined in the fresh round of litigation between the parties. Fragmentary decisions of this character have been described by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Nannelal v. Umrao Singh as most inconvenient (which) tend to delay administration of justice."
' I also took note of a similar situation in case of Rashid Ahmad v. Soot! Muhammad Saleem and another (2) and relying on the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Ibrahim have held that if the appeals against the similar orders are not competent, on the basis of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, the writ petitions also, would not be entertained. The party aggrieved in such like situation should wait till a final order is passed against it and then file an appeal under section 15 of the Ordinance.
(4) No justification has been made out for taking a different view in this case. This petition, accordingly, is dismissed in limine.
(1) PLD 1975 SC 457
(2) PLD 1976 Lah. 1450
Cited by 7 cases
- THE EASTERN EXPRESS COMPANY LTD. vs Haji KHUSHI MUHAMMAD 1995 MLD 470
- THE EASTERN EXPRESS COMPANY LTD. vs Messrs Haji KHUSHI MUHAMMAD 1995 MLD 470
- BASHIR AHMAD KHAN vs Malik MEHDI KHAN and another 1987 CLC 1620
- Syed INTESAR ALI vs AHMED DIN KHAN AND ANOTHER 1983 CLC 998
- ABDUR REHMAN vs Hail MIR AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER 1983 PLD Supreme Court 21
- AMANULLAH vs CIVIL JUDGE, LAHORE AND OTHER 1982 CLC 535
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ AWAN Versus SHAHJEHAN BEGUM , Arshad Kayani holding brief for Siddiq Mirza 1997 CLC 436