PLJ 2013 SC 13
Present: Ejaz Afzal Khan and Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, JJ.
IMRAN LATIF and another--Petitioners
MUHAMMAD SAIM JALIL and others--Respondents
Civil Petitions No. 1234 & 1026 of 2012, decided on 20.9.2012.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 07.03.2012 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in FAO 66 & 67/2008).
----Art. 185(3)--Leave to Appeal--Relationship of landlord and tenant--Power to ejectment order--Validity--Contention--Where relationship of landlord and tenant was denied Rent Controller had power to order ejectment of tenant but no provision of Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 empowers Rent Controller or any other Court in hierarchy to pass the order--Appeal was allowed. [P. 13] A
Sh. Khawar, ASC for Petitioners (in both cases).
Mr. Sanaullah Zahid, ASC for Respondent No. 1 (in C.P. No. 1234 of 2012).
Mr. Nazir Ahmed Bhutta, ASC for Respondent No. 1 (in C.P. No. 1026 of 2012).
Date of hearing: 20.09.2012
Ejaz Afzal Khan, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 07.03.2012 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, whereby the learned Judge in its Chambers dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by observing as under:
"8. For the reasons supra, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The appeal being devoid of force is hereby dismissed. However, the appellant is given a period of two months from today for vacation of the rented premises subject to payment of rent from August, 2001 till vacation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that where relationship of landlord and tenant is denied the Rent Controller has the power to order ejectment of the tenant but no provision of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 empowers the Rent Controller or any other Court in the hierarchy to pass the order mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that where there has not been any dispute about the quantum of rent and the arrears thereof, the Rent Controller or for that matter any other Court in the hierarchy could pass an order directing the respondent to pay rent or its arrears.
4. We have gone through the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We have also read most of the provisions of the Act to find the one empowering the learned Rent Controller or any other Court in the hierarchy to pass the order mentioned above, but we could not find any. Nor could the learned counsel for the respondent advert to a provision or case law in this behalf. When this being the case we convert these petitions into appeals, allow CMAs for condonation of delay and partly allow the appeals by modifying the impugned judgments only to the extent of payment of rent from August, 2001 till vacation of the premises. However, none of the observations made above would debar the respondent from claiming arrears under the law from the appellants.
(R.A.) Appeal allowed