MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J. --- Through the filing of the present Constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question order dated 25.1.2002 whereby the learned Rent Controller, Lahore, passed an order in exercise of its powers under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. thereby directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent as well as future monthly rent.
2. Brief facts, necessary for the decision of the present petitions are that the respondents instituted an ejectment petition, against the petitioner, seeking his ejectment, from the shop in question, on the grounds of default in payment of rent, personal need and addition and alteration in the shop in question, before the learned Rent Controller which was contested by the petitioner on various grounds by way of filing the written reply. During the pendency of the ejectment petition and before framing the issues, the learned Rent Controller after finding that the tenancy is admitted, proceeded to pass an order under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, thereby directing the petitioner to deposit the rent from 8.6.1996 to December, 2001, for 68- months at the tentative rent, of R. 3000/- per month and also directed him to deposit the future monthly rent before 15th of each succeeding month vide order dated 25.1.2002, which has been called in question through the filing of the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Rent Controller has directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent beyond the period of three years which is not permissible under the law, thus, the impugned order is without jurisdiction, thus, amenable to the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the learned Rent Controller has ordered for the deposit of the rest precisely for three years and therefore, the learned Rent Controller has passed the impugned order in accordance with the law which is not liable to be interfered by this Court. He has further contended that the present Constitutional petition, having been filed against as interlocutory order, in incompetent and not maintainable.
4. Upon the perusal of the record of the case, I find that the ejectment petition was filed on 8.6.1996 and the learned Rent Controller while passing the impugned order directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent from 8.6.1996 to December, 2001, meaning thereby that the learned Rent Controller has calculated the period from the date of the institution of the ejectment petition and, thus, he has 'ordered for the deposit. of rent precisely for the period of three years. It is settled law that the learned Rent Controller is empowered to pass an order under Section 13(c) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, directing a tenant to deposit the arrears of rent for three years commencing from the date of the institution of the ejectment petition. I am of the view that the learned Rent Controller did not commit any illegality in passing the impugned order, as noted above, he has passed the order directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent for three years, thus, no exception can be taken by the petitioner. The impugned order is perfectly justified under the law, thus, not amenable to the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
5. Another aspect of the case is that admitted the order under challenge is as interim and interlocutory is nature. The Legislature has made this order non-appealable by specifically making a' provision is that respect in, Section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, wherein first proviso to Section .15 of the afore-said Ordinance provides that no appeal shall lie against an order made by. a Controller under sub-section (6) of Section 13 thereby directing the tenant to deposit all the rent due. In these circumstances, if the Constitutional petition is allowed to be filed against such orders, it would tentamount to defeating 'and diverging the intact of the Legislature. If any authority is needed, reference may be made to Syed Saghir Ahmad Naqvi v.
Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary S&GAD, Karachi, etc. (1996 SCM R 1165) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:--- "Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of---Statute excluding. a right of appeal from the interim order could not be bypassed by bringing under attack such interim orders in Constitutional jurisdiction-- Party affected had to wait till it matured into a final order and then to attack it in the proper exclusive forum created for the purpose of examining such orders."
6. Confronted with this, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that if this view is taken, the petitioner shall be rendered remedy less. Sufficient it to say that the contention of the learned counsel is devoid any force. The petitioner has an adequate remedy available to him of ' challenging the impugned order in appeal, which he may file against the final order passed in the ejectment petition, if it goes against the petitioner.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Constitutional petition is incompetent, not maintainable and devoid of merits thus, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.