' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.365-K and 366-K of 2003 filed by petitioners Nasir Ahmed and Tahir Ahmad respectively as they arise from the common judgment dated 25-4-2003 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, in Civil Petitions Nos.95, 96, 199 and 200 of 2003 whereby the same were dismissed and order dated 4-2-2002 passed by the learned District Judge (South), Karachi, transferring the rent cases to the Court of Vth Senior Civil Judge, was maintained.
2. Precisely, stated the facts leading to the filing of the instantpetitions are that respondents Nos.1 to 4 being joint owners of Hamidbuilding situated on M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi, rented out one shop each to the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'demised property'). The respondents/landlords filed respective rent cases against the tenants/petitioners for their ejectment in the Court of VIIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller (South), Karachi. In their written statements, the petitioners challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Rent Controller on the ground that the demised premises did not fall Within the jurisdiction of above mentioned Rent Controller. They also filed separate applications for return of the rent cases for want of territorial jurisdiction upon which a reference was made to the learned District Judge, Karachi, for transfer of the said ejectment applications to the Court having jurisdiction. The learned District Judge vide administrative order dated 4-2-2002 withdrew the said cases and transferred the same to the Court of Vth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the aforesaid administrative order in the above mentioned Constitution petitions before the High Court of Sindh which were disposed of vide impugned judgment.
3. We have heard Mr. S. Jamil Ahmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed Sheikh, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the learned High Court has misconstrued and misinterpreted the law while maintaining the order of the learned District Judge regarding transfer for the rent cases. According to him, it was not within the competence of Rent Controller to make a reference for transfer to the District Judge. Thus, both the orders being illegal, were not sustainable in law. He urged that the Rent Controller should have returned the rent cases to the respondents-landlords for presentation before the competent Court having jurisdiction.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents urged that it was within the competence of District Judge to withdraw the rent cases from the Court of VIIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller and transfer the same to Vth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, both on administrative side as well as on the judicial side. He referred to section 15 of the Civil Court Ordinance, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance, 1962') and stated that by virtue of this provisions of law, it is within the jurisdiction of District Judge to distribute any civil business under his control in such a manner as he deems fit. According to him, even in view of section 10 of the Ordinance, 1962, the local limits of jurisdiction of Civil Judge in absence of any direction by the learned High Court would be deemed to be the local limits of its jurisdiction.
6. By virtue of Notification No,VII(3) SOJ/75 dated 14-10-1980, the Government of Sindh in exercise of the powers under section 4 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referrecho as 'the Ordinance, 1979') appointed all the Senior Civil judges in the Province and Civil Judge, Badin and Joint Civil Judge, Shikarpur with not less than three years service as Civil Judge to act as Controllers within their respective jurisdiction. Thus, it is admitted that all the Senior Civil Judges being the Rent Controllers shall have the jurisdiction to act as Controller within their respective territorial jurisdiction. Sections 14 and 15 of the Ordinance, 1962, enable the District Judge to distribute the civil business of the subordinate Courts and thus is empowered to exercise the judicial as well as the administrative authority and is fully vested to withdraw a case from one subordinate Court and entrust the same to another Court for disposal in accordance with law.
Under section 10(2) of the Ordinance, 1962, when the High Court posts a Civil Judge to a District, the local limits of the District shall, in the absence of any direction to the contrary, would be deemed to be the local limits of his jurisdiction. Similarly, section 23 of the Ordinance, 1962 empowers a District Judge to entrust the work temporarily of a vacant Civil Court to any other Civil Judge in the manner he deems fit.
7. As per subsection (i) of section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001, the forum of appeal is changed and the words "High Court" have been substituted by the words "District Judge" having jurisdiction in the area where the premises in relation to which the order is passed is situated. Vide its sub- clause (1-E) (a), the District Judge being Appellate Authority is competent to withdraw any application pending with a Controller and transfer the same for disposal to any other Controller either on application or on its own motion after issuance of notice to the other party or without such notice.
8. We do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment which being based on cogent reasons is maintained.
9. Resultant, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.