' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---The petitioners filed an ejectment petition against the respondents claiming that he is tenant in property known as S-52-R-44 situated at Nisbat Road Lahore. The respondents filed written statement and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant.
The respondent stated that he is in possession of Property No.S-52-R-44-A/2 which is a different property and is occupying the same as its owner. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties on 9-2-2005 passed an order under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 and tentatively fixed the rate of rent as Rs. 18,000 per month and directed the respondents to pay the past rent of 34 months amounting to Rs .6,12,000 and continued to pay Rs.
18,000 per month before 15th of each succeeding month.
2. The main ground for passing the order under section 13(6) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 which prevails upon the learned Rent Controller was that a suit between the parties prior to institution of ejectment petition regarding property No.52-R-54 .Remain pending and description of the property in the said suit was given in para. 1 of the plaint. The respondents/alleged tenants were party to the suit and in their written statement they have not controverted the number of property. The learned Real Controller relying on the respondent's reply in the earlier suit passed the order under section 13(6) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance.
3. The respondents filed a review application praying for reviewing order dated 9-2-2005. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 28-6-2007 accepted the said review petition and framed issues as under:-- "ISSUES.
(1) Whether relationship of landlord and tenant does exist between the parties? OPR (2). Relief."
4. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 28-6-2007 through the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned Rent Controller was not enjoying any jurisdiction to review its own orders. He submits that review is a creation of statute and in the absence of any power in the statute, the Rent Controller has no power to exercise the review jurisdiction. He further submits that order under section 13(6) was tentative order and the respondents may approach the learned Rent Controller for grant of an order that the amount so deposited will remain in Court and will not be withdrawn by the petitioners/landlords. He further submits that order under section 13(6) has not been complied with and as such respondents are liable to be ejected forthwith.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in case the order of tribunal suffers from misreading and non-reading of record the Tribunal has the power to recall or revisit his own order.
He further submits that the impugned order is not in fact a review but is an order passed B in the inherent jurisdiction of the Court which is available to the learned Tribunal. He relied on Messers Pakistan Industrial Chains Company v. American Oriential Lines Inc. New York and others (PLD 1968 Karachi 89) and Muhammad Aslam Mirza v. Mst. Khurshid Begum (PLD 1972 Lah. 603),
7. The controversy between the parties is about a portion of a house which is an evacuee property and jointly owned by the parties to the petition. The property was initially allotted to the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners and respondents by the Settlement Department and after the death of their predecessor-in-interest they entered into a compromise and distributed all properties including the property subject matter of ejectment petition. A suit for permanent injunction was also remained pending between the parties and photo copy of plaint is available on record. In para 1 of the said suit, it is asserted that late. Saith Muhammad Ismail predecessor-in- interest of present petitioner was owner in possession of property S-52-R-54 measuring about 18 marlas situated at ground floor is bounded as under:- ' East.... Street.
' West... Property owned by others.
' North.. Property of Dr. Ghulam Nabi and passage of property owned by Saith Muhammad Ismail.
' South..... Property owned by others.
' Except two rooms occupied by the plaintiffs and other rooms occupied by other tenant Muhammad Younas whole of the property is in possession of defendant as tenant since 1976. The tenant has been shown as Sheikh Ahmed Saeed son of Muhammad Aslam. Sheikh Muhammad Saeed filed written statement. Para 1 of the written statement is as under:-- "Vehemently denied. The plaintiffs have badly failed to annex title documents of the suit property in favour of late Saith Muhammad Ismail. Thus their plaint is not established at all. It is important to mention that the suit property is in possession of defendant and the plaintiffs are not known to the defendant nor any notice has ever been served upon the defendant by the plaintiffs disclosing their title. It is also important to mention that the premises are in possession of the defendant and no tenant by the name of Muhammad Younas is in possession of the suit property."
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record a photo copy of transfer Order No.76439 issued by Deputy Settlement Commissioner Lahore on 7-5-1975 showing that ground floor of Property No. S-52-R-54 Nisbat Road Lahore has been permanently transferred to Sh.
Ahmed Saeed. The compromise deed available on record shows that on 30-9-1996 three parties entered into an agreement for the settlement of their properties with each other. Party No.1 Muhammad Rafique Bhatti son of Haji Shafi and Party No.2 is the legal heir of Saith Ahmed Saeed son of Muhammad Aslam and Party No.3 is the legal heirs of Saith Muhammad Ismail. The agreement shows that Saith Muhammad Ismail died on 11-6-1975 leaving behind Parties Nos.2 and 3 of the compromise deed as his legal heirs and left three properties, one house No.39 Montgomery Road Lahore comprising of 3 floors with basement. Property No.44 situated at Nisbat Road Lahore formerly known as Kashmir House comprising of shop, godown and factory and House No.596-A Satellite Town Sargodha, The Party No.3 become the owner of estate of Muhammad Ismail to the extent of 5/8 share. Party No.3 the present petitioner of ejectment petition under the said compromise become the owner of property as detailed below.
9. Party No.3 shall own and possess a portion of property No.39 Montgomery Road Lahore along with party No.2 as under:-- "Mst. Lubna at No.12 of party No.3 shall own and possess shop No.2 shown in site plan measuring 11' .6" x 10' .9" situated at ground floor on the side of Street. Mst. Shafqat Bibi party No.3 and Mst. Nuzhat at No.10 of Party No.3 shall own and possess jointly to equal share of the property No.44 situated at Nisbat Road Lahore."
10. From the perusal of above said compromise it seems that the present petitioners are joint owners of a house known as 44 Nisbat Road Lahore and the said property is the subject matter of ejectment petition. According to averment of writ petition Mr. Anjum Sohail one of legal heirs of Khawaja Muhammad Amjad rented out the property along with machinery installed thereto respondents at a monthly rent of Rs.8,500 in 1976 which became Rs.18,000 per month upto 1992 due to statutory enhancement of the rent. The learned Rent Controller while passing order under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 has not examined the document of title of the landlord and passed the order on the basis of a plaint and a reply, in an earlier suit. The petitioner filed an application for recalling the said order by placing on record the documents and the learned Rent Controller after examining the said documents came to the conclusion that petitioners claimed their title on the basis of judgment dated 4-1-1984 passed by his lordship Mr. Justice Abdul Shakurul Salam in L.P.As. Nos.718 and 872 of 1969 in the following manner:- "That the parties have composed their differences and entered in their wisdom into a compromise contained above. This would be given effect to the relevant authorities and documents prepared accordingly."
11. The petitioners are silent in this respect that they have approached the competent authorities for implementation and documentation. On the basis of aforesaid observation recorded by his lordship in his order dated 4-1-1984 the petitioner could not be treated as owner of property or the landlord of respondent.
12. The learned Rent Controller after considering the above said facts came to the conclusion that no title document has been produced by the landlord. Further the Rent Controller also considered that T.O. Dated 7-5-1975 in favour of respondents of their property. The said transfer order is evidence of title of respondents and as such in these circumstances the learned Rent Controller recalled the order under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
13. Now the question arose whether in these circumstances the learned Rent Controller was justified in recalling the earlier order passed by his predecessor-ininterest under section 13(6) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. There is no cavil in this proposition of law that review is a creation of statute and admittedly in Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance the Rent Controller has no power to exercise the power of review, but it is also an admitted fact that Rent Controller is a quasi judicial Tribunal. The Rent Controller has the power to summon the witness and to adopt the procedure provided in Civil Procedure Code and c under the Ordinance, 1959 the learned Rent Controller is competent to pass the order judicially according to the circumstances of each and every case. It is an established principle of law that the authority competent to issue order has also the power to vary or recall that order. There is no provision of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for setting aside ex parte ejectment order but the Rent Controller has E enjoyed the inherent powers to set aside an ex parte order.
In view of the above in my humble opinion, the tribunal enjoys the inherent power to rectify its own order tinder section 13(6) and to frame the issue about the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant keeping in view of the pleadings of parties. The order assailed through the present writ petition shows that learned Rent Controller has recalled its order on examination of documents available on record in its inherent jurisdiction. The petitioners have failed to make out case for interference in the impugned order in its constitutional jurisdiction, by this Court, hence, the petition failed. However, it is a G rent application and the parties are litigating with each other since long, it is appropriate that the learned Rent Controller should decide the petition expeditiously and as such the learned Rent Controller is directed to decide the .Ejectment petition within two months under intimation to the Deputy Registrar Judicial of this Court.