This second appeal under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is directed against the order dated 5th July 1979 of the learned II Additional District Judge, Sukkur whereby he dismissed the appeal challenging the order dated 17th May, 1979 of the learned Joint Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Sukkur who allowed a miscellaneous applica--petition of the respondent permitting him to instal electricity and water connec--petition in the premises without holding enquiry as provided by section 10 (3) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
2. The fats of the case are that the appellant is landlord whereas respondent is his tenant. The appellant filed an application for ejectment of the respondent in year 1977, which was pending disposal before the Rent Controller, Sukkur. It was during pendency of these proceedings when the respondent also filed an application before the Rent Controller, under sec--petition 10 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on 29th June, 1978 stating therein that he was occupying the premises since 1964 on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 100, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 150 and the appellant without caring for consequences has disconnected the electricity and water connections of the respondent against terms of the lease agreement of 2nd April, 1976. The prayer therefore was that the appel--lant be directed to restore his electricity and water connections. ~ The appellant filed his written statement on 23rd July, 1978 denying his allegations and produced the aforesaid lease agreement of 2nd April, 1976 in _ support of his connections. The respondent put in a miscellaneous application on 17th May, 1979 stating therein that he was depositing the rent regularly as per orders of the Rent Controller and the appellant in spite of it has restrained him from enjoying the amenities of electricity and water which he restored to him and the Rent Controller passed the impugned order on it.
3. Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Khan Durani, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the application for determining the points for discon--nection of electricity and water supply was pending since 29th June 1978 and it was fixed for framing of Issues after filing of the written statement by the appellant. The impugned order has been passed on a miscellaneous applica-- petition by the Rent Controller on the same day when it was presented before him. It was passed without a notice and enquiry as required by section 10(3) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. It is clear from the record that no enquiry whatsoever was held on the miscellaneous application and any order passed on it is therefore, illegal and liable to be set aside.
As far as maintainability of this application is concerned, he-has placed his reliance on;
(i) PLD 1977 Kar. 305;
(ii) PLD 1978 Kar. 19 and
(iii) PLD 1979 Lah. 132, where it has been held .That the jurisdiction of the High Court was wide enough to include even such interlocutory orders which did not conclusively determine the claims of the parties.
5. Mr. Abdul Sattar Chohan, the learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has contended that the respondent has been living in the premises since 1964 and his occupation at the relevant time was in terms of their lease-agreement of 2nd April, 1976. It has been clearly agreed upon by the parties in para. 7 of the agreement that, "the electricity charges shall be borne by the lessee and the house tax and property tax of the said property shall be borne by the lessor".
Therefore action of disconnecting electricity and water supply by the appellant was beyond the terms of lease agreement and the respondent was within his right to enjoy the facilities of electricity and water during pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller. He has also contended that it was not a case of the appellant before the 1st appellate Court that the order of the Rent Controller was passed without notice to him. This position has not been taken by him even in this Court. He has lastly contended that the impugned order was not appealable as it did not determine the rights of the parties conclusively. He relies upon;
(i) PLD 1965 Lah. 29;
(ii) PLD 1977 Kar. 1007 ; and
(iii) PLD 1978 Lah. 435.
6. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent.
The main question that arises out of the facts of the case is, if the order of the Rent Controller passed on Miscellaneous Application is an appealable order under section 15(1) and (4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.1 have carefully gone through the citation referred to above by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent, and I feel that the question stands settled in view of the above authorities which lead to only conclusion that every order which is contrary to law or germane to dispute resulting in decision of entire controversy terminat--ing the proceedings is liable to appeal under section 15(1) and (4) of the Ordi--nance keeping in view the' grounds contained in clauses (a) to (c) of section 100, C. P. C. Therefore the order of the Controller in this case also is appealable as it is not only contrary to law but has conclusively determined the claim of the parties before the Rent Controller. Moreover it is even beyond the prayer of the respondent in his application under section 10 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The respondent's prayer in his application was that the appellant be directed to restore his electricity and water connection which was being agitated in accordance with law ever-since it was filed on 29th June 1978. The Miscellaneous application was filed on 17th May, 1979, i.e. After about a year of filing of the above application and it was allowed by the Rent Controller on the very day without caring for the provisions of section 10(,3) of the Ordinance which have been clearly flouted in this case. It is thus clear that the order of the Rent Controller is not only) contrary to law but also an arbitrary one, passed without a proper notice and therefore liable to be set aside.
7. 1 therefore accept this appeal; set aside the order of the lower Courts and remand the case to the Rent Controller for a decision on merits strictly following the provisions of law.