1. SALMAN ANSARI, J.- -Thisi petition has been filed under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by the petitioner who being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 27-8-2007 passed by the learned Addl. Controller of Rents Clifton Cantonment Karachi on application under section 17(8) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act filed in R.C. No,42/2006 filed by applicant/ petitioner against opponent/ respondent Farzana Khanum. Learned Rent Controller passed order dated 28-7-2007 whereby tentative directions were issued to the respondent to deposit arrears of rent of Rs,2,95,000 for the period from September 2002 to July 2007 at the rate of Rs,5,000 per month is favour of petitioner in the Court of Controller Rents Clifton within 30 days and the respondent was further directed to deposit future monthly rent at the rate of Rs, 5,000 per month before 5th of every month. The respondent filed application for recalling the order dated 28-7-2007 under section 20 of the General Clauses Act. Learned Controller Rents Cantonment on 27-8-2007 in absence of petitioner heard the learned counsel for respondent and ordered as under:---- "Keeping in view above stated facts and considering further that the application for framing of preliminary issue of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties filed by the respondent's, counsel is yet pending for disposal whereas it has to be disposed of prior to passing of rent deposit order. I, therefore under the power conferred under section 21 of General Clauses Act hold the tentative rent order dated 28-7-2007 in abeyance till the decision/disposal of application dated 3-2-2007 filed by thc,respondent's counsel. Case to be fixed for hearing of application dated 3-2-2007 filed by the respondent's counsel for framing of preliminary issues of existence of A relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties."
2. ' Hence, this petition.
3. ' Heard learned counsel for petitioner. This matter was fixed for Katcha Peshi. Meanwhile, pre- admission notice was issued to the respondents and several attempts were made by the bailiff to serve the notice upon respondent Farzana Khanum at the given address but he remained failed to serve the same upon respondent No,1 Farzana Khanum and last endorsement of bailiff shows that person at the given address had informed the bailiff that Mst. Farzana Khanum was not available there. Notice was also sent through courier and receipts thereof have been filed. Learned counsel has stated that notice was sent to the same address as given in the rent application moved under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act pending in the Court of Rent Controller was served and learned counsel for respondent No,1 had appeared there and represented her and contested the matter.
4. ' Under the circumstances I hold the service upon respondent No, 1 good.
5. ' This matter is fixed for Katcha Peshi and has been heard at length.
6. ' It is argued that the impugned order dated 27-8-2007 passed by the learned Addl. Controller of Rents Clifton Cantonment Karachi for review of his own earlier order dated 28-7-2007 is without jurisdiction, void, ab initio. Learned counsel for petitioner also relied on PLD 1981 Supreme Court 94 (Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Sharif) in which it was held as under:- "Right of review. A substantive right and always creation of relevant statute on subject- Assumption that review is continuation of appeal. Held-not correct"
7. ' In 1983 CLC 2297 (Abdul Wahid Khan v. Ghulam Mustafa) it was observed as under:- "-Powers of Rent Controllers- Review-Rent Controller, held, not competent to review his order under provision of Ordinance"
8. ' In 2004 CLC 1525 (Ch. Ijaz Sarwar v. Nadeem Farooq and another) the Court held as mentioned herein below:- "Art. 199- Constitutional petition-Rent Controller, powers of--Review of order, jurisdiction of- Ejectment petition was filed by the respondent against the petitioner in which the Rent Controller through an order framed a solitary issue to determine whether there existed relationship of tenancy between the parties- Subsequent application by the respondent to review the said impugned order Exed a tentative rent of the property in question and directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent since institution of the . Ejectment petition- Constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner against such order- Contention of the petitioner was that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction under the law to review his order and pass the order for the deposit of rent and, therefore, the impugned order was without jurisdiction-Validity- Rent Controller under the provisions of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 had no jurisdiction to review his order-Constitutional petition was allowed in the circumstances.
9. ' Review was a substantive right and not a matter of procedure and no Court possessed the inherent powers to review its decree or order imless such a power was expressly granted by the statute."
10. ' Hence, under the circumstances I allow this petition in view of the citations relied by the learned counsel for petitioner anil hold the order dated 27-8-2007 passed by Addl. Controller of Rents Clifton Cantonment Karachi without jurisdiction as there is no provision of review in the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act,' 1963 and the order is set aside.
11. ' However, the learned Controller of Rents is at liberty to proceed with the case in accordance with the law and decide same accordingly, this order would not way tend to prejudice the proceedings pending before the learned Controller of Rents. This petition stands disposed of.