—S. 15-Appellate Forum fell in error in holding that dismissal of objection petition being interlocutory in nature, appeal against the same was not competent-

 PLJ 2004 Lahore 61

 West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--

—S. 15-Appellate Forum fell in error in holding that dismissal of objection

petition being interlocutory in nature, appeal against the same was not

competent-Mere fact that execution application was not disposed of

while dismissing objection application would not detract from finality of

order qua rights of petitioner nor could the same be considered interim or

interlocutory in nature-Order of dismissal of appeal being not

maintainable was thus, not sustainable-Appeal filed by petitioner before

Appellate Forum would be deemed to be pending to be disposed of in

accordance with law.                                                [Pp. 62 & 63] A & B

PLJ 1993 Lah. 429 and PLD 1997 Lahore 451 ref. Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Gulsher Mir, Advocate for Respondents. Date of hearing : 2.4.2003.

 PLJ 2004 Lahore 61

Present: SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.

 AMIR SHEIKH-Petitioner

versus Mst. RIFFAT ARA and 2 others-Respondents

W.P. No. 410 of 2003, heard on 2.4.2003.

JUDGMENT

By order dated 20.9.2002 the objection petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore against which appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 14.12.2002 that the same was "not an appealable order before this forum". This is writ petition thereagainst.

2. The learned counsel contends that the appeal was indeed competent against such an order of the Rent Controller and the appellate Court has declined to exercise jurisdiction in' the matter which error of jurisdiction can be corrected by this Court in writ jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed upon Meraj Din and 3 others v. Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and 2 others (PLJ 1993 Lahore 429). Contrarily the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 supports the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge on the strength of judgment reported in Haji

 

Muhammad Ramzan and another v. Abdur Rashid and another (PLD 1997 Lahore 451). The case was at the limine stage, however, in view of the controversy being of a limited nature i.e. the competency of the appeal before the lower forum and that the same has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties at length, it is being disposed of as regular matter finally.

3. Such a controversy had arisen earlier as well in Meraj Din and 3 others (Supra) when Section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 as amended was interpreted and it was held that "A plain reading of this provision shows that a right vests in an aggrieved party to challenge any order of the Rent Controller by way of an appeal before the District Judge. This is, however, subject to certain conditions, firstly, that the order should be such which has finally disposed of an application made to the Rent Controller under the Ordinance, secondly, that the order should not be interlocutory in nature and thirdly, that it should not be an order for deposit of rent under Section 13(6) of the Ordinance". In the precedent case also an objection petition had been dismissed by the Rent Controller during the course of execution proceedings. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge as being not maintainable. It was held that the learned Additional District Judge fell in error in holding that the order before him was interlocutory and not final in nature. It was further observed that "the mere fact that the execution application was not disposed of while dismissing the objection petition would not detract from the finality of the order qua the rights of the petitioners nor could the same be considered interim or interlocutory in nature." The reason for such a view is understandable and quite obvious that with the dismissal of the objection petition, an order of final nature was passed qua the petitioner. Such a disposition of the matter could not be construed as of interim or of interlocutory nature. Reliance of the learned counsel for the respondents upon Haji Muhammad Ramzan and another (Supra) is inapt inasmuch as besides that the said case is distinguishable on facts, unamended Section 15 of the Ordinance appear to have been cited before the learned Judge. The observation that "So far as appeals under Section 15 of the Ordinance are concerned, the same are limited to orders passed under Sections 4, 10, 12 and 13 of the Ordinance. Section 17 of the Ordinance is conspicuously absent from the provisions of Section 15 which clearly means that an order passed under Section 17 of the Ordinance during the course of execution proceedings is not open to appeal even under Section 15 of the Ordinance" would show that the amended provisions of Section 15 of the Ordinance escaped the notice of the learned Judge while taking the said view. Even the case of Meraj Din and 3 others (Supra) was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge. In this view of the matter, the correct legal position as to the competency of the appeal qua such an order is that which is stated in Meraj Din and 3 others (Supra), which I respectfully follow. The view thus taken by I the learned Additional District Judge in this case in dismissing the appeal of

the petitioner as not maintainable, is not sustainable and his order is thus, declared so.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore dated 14.12.2002 is declared as of no legal effect. Result whereof would be that the appeal filed by the petitioner shall be deemed pending before him which shall be heard and decided afresh in accordance with law. The parties to cause their representation made before him on 14.4.2003. It is hoped that the appellate Court will hear and decide the matter expeditiously. No order as to costs.

(A.A.)                                                                               Petition accepted.