1. ' ZIA PERWEZ, J.--- Petitioner has challenged the impugned order, dated 26-2-2007 passed by learned III-Rent Controller, Karachi East whereby while deciding application under section 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs,9;00,000 being the arrears of rent from February, 2004 to January, 2007 (36 months) at the rate of Rs,25,000.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,1 being the owner of demised premises i,e, Bungalow No,120/B, Block 13-D, Scheme 24, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, rented out the premises to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs,25,000 vide tenancy agreement dated 21-11-2002. Petitioner paid the monthly rent for two months only viz. December, 2002 and January, 2003 and thereafter failed to pay monthly rent from February, 2003 to April, 2004 which led to service of legal notice dated 27- 10-2003 and 17-3-2004 upon the petitioner followed by Rent Case No,198 of 2004 before III-Rent Controller Karachi East.
3. ' The petitioner in her written statement to the rent case has denied the existence of the rent agreement between the parties and so also default in payment of 'monthly rent. She has also alleged that the rate of rent is Rs,9,000 and not Rs,25,000.
4. ' During the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller attorney of applicant/respondent No,1 examined himself and so also the witness who were duly cross-examined. On the basis of the material available with him, learned Rent Controller passed the rent order impugned herein.
5. ' Mr. Ghulam Ali, learned cpunsel for the petitioner, has contended that the rent agreement is a disputed document and on the basis of such agreement, the impugned order cannot be passed.
6. He states that the petitioner has paid the rent for the month of February and March, 2007 at the rate of Rs,25,000 as a protest. He further contended that the agreement is for three years and being not registered, is a void document under section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. Requisite stamp is not paid and thus,, the' agreement is under stamped under Article 21(ii) of the Stamp Act, 1899.
7. He contended that the petitioner is unable to pay rent at the rate of Rs,25,000 due to financial constraints and if the arrears of rent i,e, Rs,9,00,000 will not be paid, the petitioner ill be ejected and thus, the petitioner is prejudiced from the impugned order. He contended that the ejectment will cause disturbance to the students. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the case of Habib Bank Limited v. Dr. Munawar Ali 'Siddiqui 1991 SCMR 1185 and Messrs Shamim Akhtar v.
8. State Life. Insurance Corporation of Pakistan PLD 2005 Kar.
9. 554.
10. ' In 'reply Mr. Muhammad Sharif, learned counsel for the respondent, has argued that the learned Rent. Controller has initially rejected the application under section 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and after recording of the evidence of the applicant side, the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any non-reading or misreading of - the evidence for exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In support of this contention he has referred to, the evidence of attorney of applicant/respondent and his witness. He has also placed reliance on the cases of Habib Bank Limited v. Dr. Munawar Ali Siddiqui 1991 SCMR 1185, Mst. Fatima v. Mst. Hanifa 1986 CLC 1613, Muhammad Rafique v. Messrs Habib Bank Limited 1994 SCMR 1012, Faiz and sons v. Hakimsons (Impex) Private Ltd. 1999 SCMR 2771, Faiz and Sons v.
11. Hakimsons (Impex) Private Ltd. PLD 1997 Kar. 238, Mst. Akhtar Jehan Begum v. Muhammad Azam Khan PLD 1983 SC 1, Syed Adil Hussain v. Mst. Majda 2000 CLC 1982, Badrul Hague Khan v. The Election Tribunal Dacca and others PLD 1963 SC 704, Muhammad Saeed v. Saratul Fatima and another PLD 1978 Lah. 1459 and Mehmood Ahmad v. State Life Corporation of Pakistan 1998 CLC 1987.
12. ' I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone the impugned order and available record. An opportunity was also given to the parties to resolve their dispute amicably but in vain.
13. ' Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Rent Controller has passed the impugned order after due deliberation as the first application under section 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was disposed of, till the evidence of the applicant is recorded. From the record it is also apparent that the petitioner has not come with clean hands. On one hand she has .Denied the relationship of tenancy and on the other has pleaded to have paid the rent at the rate of Rs,9,000.
14. Even otherwise the petitioner herself has admitted payment of rent to the respondent at the rate of Rs,25,000 for two months. Learned counsel has not been able to show any misreading or non- reading of the evidence. The learned Rent Controller has very carefully discussed the evidence of the applicant in the impugned order.
15. ' Indeed learned counsel for the petitioner has very much .Stressed on the ground as to non- registration of the tenancy agreement and non-reading and misreading of the evidence.
16. Undisputedly the impugned order is in the nature of a tentative order of an interim nature passed on an interlocutory application filed on behalf of the petitioner, whereas under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 appeal is provided only from order which is not an interim order. Obviously, it is in view of The bar contained in section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 that the petitioner did not file appeal against, the impugned order but has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, In a number of cases it has been held that no constitution petition is maintainable against an interim order of the Rent Controller, the reason being that if constitutional petition were to be entertained the very A purpose of. Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 would be defeated. The petitioner will have opportunity to file appeal if the final order goes against him and then he can raise the afore-stated grounds 'too.
17. ' The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not attracted to the present, case. In case of Habib Bank Limited (supra) it has been held that agreement of tenancy for a period exceeding one year require registration. In the instant case this aspect of the matter has not been touched by the learned Rent Controller as the impugned order is an interlocutory order.
18. Furthermore, learned Rent Controller in the impugned order has also taken care the interest of the petitioner as well by not allowing the applicant/respondent to 'withdraw the monthly rent more than Rs,9,000, which is admitted rate of rent which protects the interest of both the parties.
19. 'It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has approached this Court by way of petition immediately after passing of order under section 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 which is not competent in the absence of any order passed under section 16(2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 as held in the case of Muhamm'ad Riaz v. Mst. Begum Jan 1984 CLC 2970.
20. ' In view of the above this petition does not merit consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine along with listed application with no order as to costs.