1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The dispute between the parties is in respect of property bearing Survey No. R. C. 12/97, tenement No. G-I, which was transferred to respondent No. 1 on the 16th April 1961 by the Settlement Department. The respondent No. 1 filed an ejectment application under section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against respondent No. 2 oily on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-letting. The petitioner filed an application under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. And claimed that he may be joined as a party in the proceedings. This application was rejected on the 11th January 1967. The learned Rent Controller held that the petitioner is not a proper party. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order in the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi which was dismissed on the 13th April 1970 on the ground that subsection (4) of section 15 is complimentary to sub--section (1) of section 15 and no appeal lay from the impugned order. The matter was then taken before the Letters Patent Bench in L. P. A. No. 101 of 1970 and a Division Bench of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi dismissed it on the 29th April 1971 on the ground that no right of appeal ex1sts and the appeal of the petitioner was not maintainable. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
2. Mr. Rehmat Elahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that as the class of cases has not been specified by the Government by notification, the appeal is competent under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The contention of the learned counsel has no force, because section 15(1) has been substituted by a new sub---clause which reads as under:- "Any party aggrieved by an order made by the Controller under section 4, section 10, section 12 or section 13, may within thirty days of the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the are where the building or rented land, in relation to which the order is passed, is situated."
3. After the amendment of this provision of law in 1966, no power is left with the Government to confer powers on the District Judges to hear appeals in such area or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order. The words in section 15(4) of the said Ordinance, namely, "if an appellate authority has not been appointed in respect of any area or class of cases" has now become redundant. In order to appreciate the point of the learned counsel section 15(4) is reproduced below:- "15(4). Any party aggrieved by an order passed in appeal by the appellate authority appointed by the Government under clause (a) of subsection (1), and if an appellate authority has not been appointed in respect of any area or class of cases, any party aggrieved by an order of the Controller may, within 30 days from the date of the order of the appellate authority or, as the case may be, of the Controller, prefer an appeal in writing to the High Court and the decision thereof shall be final."
4. In our opinion, now the appeal will lie to the High Court only in cases in which appellate authority has not been appointed in any area by the Government. So far as the class of cases are concerned they have been specified in section 15(1) of the said Ordinance and, therefore, no appeal will lie to the High Court directly on the ground of non-specification of class of cases. In these circumstances, the view taken by the High Court that no appeal lay to the High Court is correct and no exception can be taken to it.
5. We would, however, observe that the petitioner has given notice to the respondent No. 1 that he is in possession of the property in his own right. In case the eviction order is passed against respondent No. 2, the executing Court will execute the decree against the petitioner after determining his right in the property in dispute.
6. Subject to the above remarks, the petition is dismissed.