' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 26-5-2007 the respondent No,1 filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner from a house located in Lahore urban area. According to him the petitioner is a tenant subject to payment of rent at the rate of Rs,8500 per month under a written agreement dated 3-7-1998. It was alleged that the petitioner has not paid rent at enhanced rate as agreed between the parties and has committed default in payment of rent. Bona fide personal requirement was also pressed. The petitioner filed a written statement denying the said allegations of default and personal requirement. On 15-4-2008 the learned Rent Controller passed an order under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The rate of rent was fixed tentatively at the rate of -Rs,8,500 per month and directed the petitioner to pay the arrears from May, 2007 i,e, date of institution to March, 2008 within one month and to pay future rent before the 15th day of every succeeding month. He, however, observed that the petitioner will be entitled to deduct the amount already paid. Issues were framed. The case was adjourned to 15-5-2008 when an application was filed for recalling the said order dated 15-4-2008. It was stated that the rent was being paid regularly through cross cheques and direction for arrears ought not to have been issued. Another application was filed stating that the rent for the month of May, 2008 has been paid to the respondent by means of cheque and has been deposited in Court as well and same be adjusted. An application was filed by the respondent also for modifying order dated 15-4-2008 by fixing rent at the rate of Rs,13,281.25. Yet another application was filed by -the respondent No,1 for framing an issue as to the rate of rent. All these applications were taken up on 25-7-2008. The application for adjustment of rent of May, 2008, which had been paid twice, was allowed. The application for recalling order dated 15-4-2008 was dismissed. At the same time it was observed that the petitioner has failed to produce proof for payment of rent from May, 2007 to January, 2008.
The defence was struck off and the petitioner was directed to deliver the possession. At the same time the case was adjourned to 17-9-2008 for arguments on the application for framing of additional issue. The petitioner filed an application for review of the said order dated 25-7-2008 stating that he has paid the rent by means of cheques which have been cleared and paid into the account of the respondent. This application was dismissed on 15-11-2008 on the ground that the order cannot be reviewed. This writ petition came up on 20-11-2008 when notice was issued to the respondent who put in appearance along with learned counsel on 4-12-2008. He was confronted with statement of the Bank accounts produced by the petitioner. He stated that he had remained out of country and is maintaining accounts at two banks that he will check-up with his banks.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent has candidly conceded that the rent in fact had been paid into account of the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the rent for January, 2007 to March 2008 having been admittedly paid into the account of the respondent, the learned Rent Controller has acted without lawful authority while striking off the defence and directing delivery of possession. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 while not denying due payment of the rent vehemently urges that the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against the order dated 25-7-2008 which by all means was a final order of ejectment and notwithstanding the fact that the rent had been paid the learned Rent Controller has passed a lawful order on 15-11-2008 dismissing the review application for the reason that he had no jurisdiction to review the order.
4. I have gone through the records of the learned Rent Controller. The details of the proceedings have already been noted above. It is an admitted position that the rent from May, 2007 to January, 2008 stood regularly paid each month into bank account of the respondent, Thus, there was no non-compliance of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller under section 13(6) of the said Ordinance, 1959.
5. Coming to the said contention of the learned counsel. It is true that order passed on 25-7-2008 directing the petitioner to deliver the possession after striking off his defence was appealable.
However, it is equally true that in the peculiar circumstances of the case when the learned Rent Controller kept the proceedings pending and in fact adjourned the case for arguments on the application filed by the respondent No,1 for framing an additional issue and further in view of the admitted position that the rent had actually been paid to the landlord, it cannot be said that the petitioner acted mala fide while bringing the said fact to the notice of the learned Rent Controller.
6. The availability of alternate remedy does not constitute a bar upon jurisdiction of this Court to entrain a writ petition and to exercise constitutional jurisdiction if the circumstances so warrant. It is more regulatory provision than a rule of law. In case in hand when it is admitted that rent stood paid to the landlord, the order striking off the defence and directing delivery of possession is wholly without jurisdiction as the only fact which authorize the learned Rent Controller to pass such an order is non-compliance of the order under section 13(6) of the said Ordinance, 1959 for deposit of rent. The impugned order is patently illegal and illegality is floating on its surface. Besides, Article 203 of the Constitution vests this Court with supervisory jurisdiction over all Courts subordinate to it and in the exercise of said authority to correct and jurisdictional or legal defect in order impugned before it. Reference be made to the cases of Government of Punjab through Ministry for Revenue, Board of Revenue Lahore and others v. Messrs Crescent Textile Mills Ltd. PLD 2004 SC 108 and The Murree Brewery Co. Ltd v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division and 2 others PLD 1972 SC 279.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner expresses no objection to the framing of additional issue as to the rate of rent. Following additional Issue No,1-A is accordingly framed:--- "At what rate the rent is payable by the respondent to the petitioner in accordance with agreement between the parties?
8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 25-7-2008 is declared to be without lawful authority and void. The result would be that the ejectment application shall be deemed to be pending before Mr. Akhtar Hussain Kalyar. Rent Controller, Lahore. The parties shall appear before the said learned Court on 3-2-2009. A copy of this judgment along with record shall be immediately remitted to the said Court. The learned Rent Controller shall record evidence of the parties and to decide the matter positively on or before 31-3-2009 even if he has to move on day to day basis. The rent due shall also be determined in accordance with evidence to be recorded. No order as to costs.