' This judgment shall decide Writ Petitions Nos. 1176 and 1177 of 2003 as common questions are involved. Nowever, I deem it proper to state the facts of both cases separately.
1. Writ Petition No.1176 of 2003. On 25-1-2002 respondent No.3 filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner from a property located inI and T -Centre Main Aabpara Market, Islamabad. The admitted current rate of rent is Rs.38,720 per month. The ejectment was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent w.e.f. 15-2-1999, unauthorized subletting, impairment of the value of the building and personal requirement of the respondent. The petitioner admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and also current rate of rent. Other allegations were denied.
' Purporting to act under section 17(8) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001, the learned Rent Controller directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent as also to pay future rent. This order was not complied with and defence was struck off on 11-1-2003. A first appeal was filed. During hearing of the appeal, the petitioner was directed to pay arrears of rent w.e.f. January, 2002. This order also was not complied with and appeal was dismissed on 21-4-2003.
2. Writ Petition No.1177 of 2003. On 18-5-2002 respondents filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner from a house located in Sector F-11/3 Islamabad. Admitted rate of rent is Rs.17000. The ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. November, 2001, personal use and non-payment of utility bills. The petitioner admitted relationships of landlord and tenant as also the rate of rent. He, however, alleged that he has paid advance rent up to 31-10-2002. A preliminary objection was raised that the petitioner has effected improvement/repair with the consent of the respondents of the value of Rs.5,00,000. Other allegations were denied. Learned Rent Controller passed an order, dated 11-1-2003 directing the petitioner to deposit the arrear of rent w.e.f. November, 2002 and to pay future rent. This order was not complied with and ultimately the defence was struck off on 20-2-2003. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad, on 2-5-2003.
3. Notices were issued in these writ petitions pursuant to the plea taken by the petitioners that notification declaring urban area of Islamabad has not been issued and as such impugned orders are without lawful authority.
4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners in these cases contend that section 1(2) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance% 2001, lays down that the said Ordinance shall extend to such urban area of Islamabad Capital Territory and apply to such building and rented land as Federal Government may by notification in the official Gazette specify. They further refer to section 2(k) of the Ordinance which defines the urban area to mean such area or areas of Islamabad Capital Territory as Federal Government may by notification in the official Gazette, specify. The precise contention of the learned counsel is that since a notification in terms of section 1(2) of the said Ordinance, 2001, has not been issued, the learned lower forums have no jurisdiction to entertain the ejectment petitions and consequently to pass the impugned orders. They relied on the judgment, dated 8-4-2003 of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.3642 of 2002. Learned counsel representing the respondents in these cases, on the other hand, draw my attention to a Notification S.R.O.83(Ke)/2002, dated 19-7-2002 published in Gazette of Pakistan Extraordinary on 1- 8-2002. This notification has been issued in terms of said provisions of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently urge that the said objection was never raised before the learned lower forum and conduct of the petitioners in both these cases further debar them from seeking equitable relief from this Court. They further seek to distinguish the said judgment, being relied upon by the petitioner, with the said contention.
5. I have already stated above, the location of two properties in these two cases. A reading of the table appended to the said notification, dated 1-8-2002 leaves no manner of doubt that the properties are located in area which stands specified in the said notification to be urban area for the purpose of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001. It is true that when petition in both cases were filed, the said notification has not been published. However, to my mind, nothing turns on the said plank in favour of the petitioners as under section 1(3) said Ordinance shall come into force at once. The urban area was of course to be specified which stand so specified in terms of section 1(2) read with section 2(k) of the said Ordinance, 2001. I may note here that there is no allegation or objection that the learned Rent Controller who took cognizance of the matter was not validly appointed in terms of section 7 of the said Ordinance, 2001. This being so, institution of the applications in the Court of learned Rent Controller being in accord with section 7(3) of the said Ordinance, 2001, the same cannot be said to be without lawful authority.
6. Now coming to the said judgment of this Court. I find that while deciding the said matter, his lordship was cognizant of the fact that objections were not raised before the lower forum. The equities of the case and the conduct of the parties in juxta position to each other were duly considered. Needless to state that the said notification, dated 1-8-2002 was not brought to the notice of his lordship. In the present cases it is admitted fact that both the petitioners are defaulter in payment of rent. Not only this they committed default even of the orders passed by the learned Courts below directing them to deposit rent in Court. I, therefore, do find that the said conduct of the petitioners, apart from legal position explained above, disentitle them to call upon this Court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in their favour.
7. For all that has been discussed above, both the writ petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs.