1. ' BIN YAMIN, J.---This order will dispose of constitution petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed rent case No.1205 of 2007 viz. Muzaffar Ali Isani v. Aga Wasif Abbas for his ejectment from the premises bearing No.F-31/A, Block-7, KDA Scheme No.5, Kehkashan, Clifton, Karachi. The petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent No.1 and he further claimed that he is tenant of one Muhammad Amin. During the trial respondent No.1 filed application under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 requesting to the Court, that direction may be given to the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent as well as future rent in Court vide order, dated 22-4-2008.
3. ' Feeling aggrieved with the order of Rent Controller, dated 22-4-2008 regarding deposit of rent as well as future rent, petitioner has challenged the said order through instant petition. Heard advocate for petitioner as well as advocate for respondent No.
1. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as the relationship of landlord and tenant were denied therefore without recording the evidence of the parties, learned Rent Controller cannot pass the order directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent as well as future rent. That impugned order is illegally passed by learned Rent Controller therefore, the petitioner may be admitted to regular hearing.
4. ' Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has disputed the contentions and submitted that Rent Controller in his impugned order has clearly held, that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties, therefore, he directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent as well as future rent. He further contented that order directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent as well as future rent is an interim order passed by the Rent Controller, therefore, the same can neither be challenged through appeal nor filing constitutional petition. In this regard he has referred to section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, wherein it is specifically provided that no appeal can be filed against the interim order passed by Rent Controller. He further submitted that in 1989 CLC 1006 it was held that order of depositing of rent or future rent cannot be challenged being interim order and the same can be challenged after final order is passed. He further relied on PLD1977 Lahore 376.
5. ' Learned counsel for respondent No.1 therefore, contended that as through instant petition interim order depositing arrears of rent as well as future rent is challenged, therefore, this constitutional petition is not maintainable. That if the petitioner feels aggrieved with the order of Rent Controller he can challenge the same after final order.
6. I have given consideration to the contentions raised by learned counsel at bar and also have perused the material placed on record. No doubt order which is challenged through instant constitutional petition is an interim order. No appeal or constitutional remedy can be sought against any interim order passed by Rent Controller. As through instant petition interim order is challenged, therefore, the same is not maintainable which is dismissed in limine. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the order of deposit of rent as well as future rent, after passing the final order by the Rent Controller.