Respondent No. 3's ejectment petition for the eviction of the petitioner from the questioned premises, on the grounds of default and personal need, was resisted by the petitioner, through filing the written reply, inter alia, denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. The learned Rent Controller, on 29.6.2004, directed the petitioner to deposit the future monthly rent @ Rs. 10,000/- and framed the solitary issue regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It appears that the petitioner did not comply with the terms of the said order and consequently the learned Rent Controller struck off his defence and accepted the ejectment petition, vide order dated 4.12.2004. The said order was maintained, when petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the learned appellate authority, vide judgment dated 28.7.2005, hence the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and simultaneously to frame issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, is contradictory in nature and self-destructive. He adds that as the basic 'order is illegal and void, therefore, subsequent series of orders have no legal value. Conversely the learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 have supported the impugned orders and submitted that the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of order Section 13(6) of the Ordinance, 1959, therefore, the impugned order was rightly passed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. Admittedly, the learned Rent Controller after the receipt of written reply to the ejectment petition, passed the rent deposit order and simultaneously framed the issue regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, vide order dated 20.6.2004. Further admittedly, the plea of the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller was that he is not tenant under the respondent. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller rightly framed the issue qua the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, but committed grave legal error, while directing the petitioner to deposit the rent in Government Treasury. To say the least the approach of the learned Rent Controller is violative of the settled law on the subject. Undoubtedly, to establish the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, a person claiming to .be landlord has to produce documentary or/and unimpeachable oral evidence. The learned Rent Controller, without deciding issue of relationship of landlord and tenant, has no jurisdiction to proceed with the case, unless the issue, touching the jurisdiction of the learned Controller, is decided at the first instance. In such circumstances, learned Rent Controller should frame issue regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties (as has been done in the present case), call upon the ejectment petitioner to prove the said issue, provide opportunity to the respondent to rebut the evidence, if produced by the petitioner, and then to pass a reasoned order regarding the fate of the said issue. In case of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant, the learned Rent Controller, without adopting the said course of action, is no way empowered to straightaway direct a respondent to deposit the future monthly rent in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon the learned Rent Controller under Section 13 (6) of the Ordinance. If any judgments are needed, cases reported as Kamran Butt vs. Lt. Col. Syed Iftikhar Ahmad (PLD 1991 Karachi 417), Tariq Ali Sheikh vs. Rent Controller Mr. Khalid Nawaz Lahore and another (PM 1997 Lahore 1773) and Mst. Razia Begum and another vs. Senior Civil Judge (Rent Controller), Charsadda and 2 others (PLD 1996 Peshawar 8).
4. In the above perspective, I am of the firm view that the order dated 29.6.2004, to the extent it directs the petitioner to deposit the future monthly rent and on the basis of which subsequent orders were passed, is without jurisdiction and cannot be allowed to be sustained.
5. As the basic order dated 29.6.2004, upon which the entire superstructure has been built, is held to be without jurisdiction, therefore, the subsequent orders, on the basis of which the ejectment has been ordered, have also no legal value in the eye of law. It has been held in Yousaf Ali vs. Muhammad Aslam Zia and 2 others (PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 104) that if on the basis of a void order subsequent orders have been passed either by the same authority or by other authorities, whole series of such orders, together with the superstructure of rights and obligations, built upon them, must, fall to the ground, because such orders have a little legal foundation as the void order on which they are founded.
6. In the above perspective, the impugned orders are not sustainable and I am inclined to set aside all the orders and to remand the case to the learned Rent Controller for its fresh decision.
7. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present petition is allowed and the orders dated 29.6.2004 and 4.12.2004, passed by the learned Rent Controller and the judgment dated 28.7.2005, passed by the appellate authority, are declared to be illegal, without lawful authority and having no legal effect. Resultantly, the ejectment petition, filed by the Respondent No. 3, shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Rent Controller, who at the first instance shall decide the issue regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, in the manner as stated above and of course in accordance with law within a period of four months from today.
Parties are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 6.12.2005. 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.