Umair Khan Vs Aamir Mehfooz Ur Rehman

P L_ S I I /1 LL',A R I I I G I I C ( ) t i R'1",1 R R O T 7 .1 R,,l t) RIiNCII

./t; t ) tc 1) 1. 1) li t)/1 1?'t M1..N',t J LIDG M I]iN'I' SI I I.: Ii'I'

ll/P No. 459-A/2021.

Lt Dute o.f hauritrg 09.01.2023.

Petilioncr/s (limuir Khun) h.l Mr. Sultutt Ahmed Khttn Jantshed, Atlvocule.

Respotrtlcnl/s (Auntir M c lt./itoz.- ur- Rehntun & others) h.1, Mr. Iltrhhlitr I lt n o d .,1 w u n,,1 tlyo tu e. t t

h A7.AI, SUI]IIAN ,t.. I hrough this pctition Iilctl r-rnclcr Articlc 199 ol- thc (hnstitution of Islanric I{cpr-rblic of l)akistan, 1973, thc pctitioncr has invokcd thc jurisclict ion ol- this Court with thc praycrs lor sclting asidc thc impugncd ordcr datcd: 10.10.2020 passcd by thc lcarncd Civil Judgc-lll/llcnt (lontrol lcr, I Iavcl ian, Abbollabad

2.lracts of thc casc arc that prcscnt pctitioncr filcd scvcn rcnl pclitions, lor c'icctmcrrt ol' tcnants, as nrcr-ttionccl in tabulatccl lirrm, in thc inrpugncd ordcr.

Alicr institutions ol thcsc pctitions, noticcs wcrc issuccl 1tl rcspondcnts and aftcr appcarancc, thcy filccl scparatc rcply 1o thc

rcnt pctilions and issttcs thcrcol- ucrc liarrcd, howcvcr, on 10.10.2020, lcarncd Civil Judgc-lll, Ilcnt Controllcr llavclian, Abbottabad, passcd thc fbllowing orclcr, in para 3., thcrcin: -

'fhere.fore, 1 the given background. lhe inslonl pelilirtn bcars 2/llC will be token frtr ./urther proceedings while all the rest ofrent pelitions bearing Nos 3/tlc. 4/RC. 5/RC, (t/RC, 7/RC untl 8/llC arc hereb-t' tttnsignacl lo record room withoul .t'urlher proc'cedings wilh diracliort lo implcad the parlies and ull the reliefs of the above rent pel il irns in rent pelition No. 2/ll('.

3.Argutncnls ol lcarncd counscl lor pctitioncr and lcarncd counscl lor rcspondcnl hcard and rccord gonc through.

4.[,carncd coLlnscl lirr pctitioncr sr-rbnrittccl in his argumcnts that scvcn scparalc pctitions wcrc tllcd by 1hc

pclilioncrs, bascd on scparatc tcnancy agrccmcnls, lor thc cjcctn.rcnt o[' rcspondcnts, hcncc, thc impugncd ordcr has virtually dccidcd and rcjcctcd thc rcr.naining 6 cviction pctitions without its latc bcing dclennincd on mcrits. IIc ncxl contcndcd tl.ral law i.c. Wcst I)akistan Ilcnt Rcstriction Ordinancc, 1959 (Ordinancc) docs not rccognizc such proccdurc ol arraying all thc lar.rd lords and tcnants in onc and thc samc cviction pclition, u'hcn ordcrs lilr thc cjcctrncnt is soirght on thc basis ol'clillcrcnt agrccnrcnts and in rcspcct of di['1'crcnt shops. I lc contcndccl that as thc ? impugncd ordcr has not finally dccidcd thc applications, thcrcfirrc, hc could not challcngc through appcal/s undcr scclion l5 ot' thc Ordinancc, hcncc, l.raving no othcr c llloacious rcrncdv availablc 1o thc pclitioncr cxccpt approaching this court with wril pctilion hcncc, instanl wril pctitiorr rvas lllcd.

5.Lcarncd counscl lor rcspondcnts though did no1 strongly controverlcd thc pctition but contcndcd that thc pclitior.rcr had the firrum ol appcal undcr Scction l5 of thc Ordinancc, hcncc, thc wril pctition is not maintainablc. I Ic, howcvcr, conccdcd that i1 would no1 bc possiblc 1-or thc I{cnt Controllcr 1o cf1'cctivcly and cfficaciorrsly dccidc thc lale ol all thcsc pctition in a singlc pctition

6.Aflcr hcaring thcsc argut.ncnts and considcring thc lacls and circumslanccs of thc casc. it is 1o bc mcnlioncd that though q thc Ordinancc docs no1 lay any rcstrictions rcgarding thc applicability ol- prinoiplcs and proccdr-rrc laid down by thc Codc ol Civil Proccdurc Codc 190u, and cvcrt singlc cjcctmcnt aPPlication can convcnicnlly bc filcd against scvcral lcnants, il' thc cjcctmcnt ol- thc tcnants is sought on similar ground and bascd on onc and thc samc agrccmcnl but whcn scvcral land lords have filcd cjcctmcnt applicalion,

bascd on dillbrcnt agrccmcnts, on cli fl'crcnt grounds and againsl dillbrcnt lcnants thcn the righls of thc parlics, diffcrently placcd, cannot convcnicntly and conclusivcly bc dccidcd and a single pctition rcgarding mLrhiplc rclicl against dillcrcnl tcnants or1 dilfcrcnt grounds would sullcr liom multilariousncss of causcs of actions. l'hus, thc impugncd ordcr is l'ound againsl thc spirit ol law and would not only dclay but causc scrious inconvcnicncc to thc pat-tics.

h-r this rcspcct guidancc can bc dcrivcd lrom thc casc of L4tthctmmad ,4ytth-Vs- Additional District .ludge, Gujranwala and 2 others, rcporlcd in 19t15 CLC Lahorc, 1744, whcrcin, it was hcld thal: - llhen confronled with lhe proposilion lhal provisions ry' the CiviL Procedure Code are nol direclly applicable lo lhe proceedings under the lTenl

lleslriclbn Ordinonce, I 959, reliance on behalf rf the respondenl has been placed on Ayub Khan and anolher v l;azal llaq and olhers P L D 1976 S C 122 wherein. it has been held thal the I?enl Conlroller, in exercise oJ his discrelbn, is enlilled lo folktw

equitable principles 0/ lhe Civil l'rocedura Code. ])in Multammocl v. Abdul ,4ziz I' L I) 1967 l.ah. 653 has also heen ciled. In lltis case, il was rulecl tJtot proc'eeclings under section l3 rf the Wesl Pakistan [Jrban lle nl lleslriction Ordinance, 1959, are in pari materin wilh a suil. Order lX, rule 13, C.P.C. r.s, there.fbre, applicable lo these proceedings as being an enabling provisiott and tlte time prescribed by lrticle l6'l of the [,imitalion tlct would be similarlv allracled. ln lbdul Qcry1,11P ond anolher v. Mst. Khurslticl ,/ehan und others l9lJ4 S C M lt 710, ejectment o.f ;/ive lenunts lfuough one order wos upheld in u case v,here the lancllord proposed lo reconslrucl lhe premi.ses bv removing some o.f tlte walls and raising .tome ne\r. ones and lhus lo converl .five shops into a big hall wilh o kitchen and panlry.

l.fi er anal),sing lhe above argunenls odvanced on heho{ of lhe parties, it cln be soJbly concluded tltat a landlord c0n compelenlly bring u s ingle ejeclmenl appLication again.sl di/Jbrent lenants, if llta ejeclntenl is based on lhe same ground and is resuLt of lhe same caltse of aclion.

l. So lar as nlaintainability o1- thc writ pctition is conccrncd, llcccllcss to say that

an appcal can bc fllcd undcr scction l5 o1' thc Ordinancc by a par11' aggricvcd b1' arr ordcr olthc Controllcr, finally disposing o1' thc application tnaclc undcr thc Ordinancc, howcvcr, as thc impugncd ordcr has not finally disposcd of' thc applications undcr thc Ordinancc, to bc challcngcd through appcal utrdcr scction l5 ot'thc Ordinancc.

'l'hus, kccping in vicu'thc matlcr involvcd and arising out oI thc impugncd ordcr rcproduccci in para-2 abovc, no cfllcacious rcrncdl, sccllls to bc availablc to tl.rc a pctilioncr, and thcrclitrc, r,"rit pctition, irl thc circumstanccs. is hcld to bc ruraintairrab lc. In this rcspcct rcliancc is placcd on thc casc law ol Ghulam Zukria Qureshi-Vs-Khovlttitr Ghulant l4urlu:tt l.one untl 2 olhcrs, rcporlcd in t'>l-l) 2000 Pcshawar 47, whcrcin, it has bcen hcld as [bllowing: -

It is a sellled principle o[ law thal no intarkx'trlory order oJ tt llenl Controller t'an be chrtllenged in oppeal which is specilicolly barred trnder secl ion I 5 o/ the Urban llent

llcstriclion Ordinance. 1959.

Sintilarly lte I revisional

I

.lurisdiclion under seclion I 15, ('.l).C. can also be nol invoke tl hetouse such pntvisions of lhe ('.1).C. are not applicable to llte proceedings berttre a llenl ()onlroller.

8.Iror thcsc rcasons and whilc rclying on thc abovc judgrncnts, it is hcld that thc irnpugncd ordcr bcing lcgally incorrccl is no1 sustainablc, hcncc, stands sct asidc. All thc six (06) c-icctmcnl applications oonsignccl through impugncd ordcr, arc rcstorcd and thc lcarncd Ilcnt (lonlrollcr, I lavclian Abbottabad is dircctccl to procccci with thcsc cascs silltLlltancousl)' arrd dccidc thc sarnc in accordancc with law.

Announcad.

f^o ,'.h>

JUDGI'